AM parts recall

Comment

Comment by April Hernandez on February 11, 2010 at 4:12pm

I just received a supplement for a vehicle we are repairing. The insurance company sent our estimate through an auditing company and the OEM impact bar was changed to aftermarket. We will not use an aftermarket impact bar and you are right, the shop is responsible. We have been known to order both OEM and aftermarket and then call the appraiser to come inspect both parts with the vehicle owner. It is not as easy for the appraiser to say they are like, kind, quality face to face with the parts! Of course that does takes administrative time and money. If the insurance company does not agree to use OEM, then either the customer pays the part price difference or we do not do the repairs.
I know it is not considered a "safety" part, but a bumper that comes in with damage on the tabs that insurance appraisers tend to ignore, is in my opinion just as much a safety issue. Would love to come to your meeting in March. Sounds exciting!!

Comment by Bill Fowler on February 10, 2010 at 4:05pm

Wade, I have been following this drama closely as it is unfolding and it now appears that a few insurance companies are beginning to jump overboard from this rapidly sinking ship to distance themselves from this Titanic as quickly as possible. By comparison, the current safety re-calls involving some Japanese makes and the costs to correct them are small change compared to the nightmare we have brewing in this imitation part issue.
The question, I think, will soon shift to who is going to bear the cost burden to correct the mess that has taken years to create. Will it be the shops that complied with the demands of the insurance industry? Will it be the insurance industry that accepted these parts as being equivalent to OEM parts? Or will it be CAPA, the entity that certified these parts as being the structural equivelant of OEM?
If Honda, Toyota, and other manufacturers have a responsibility to re-call their vehicles because of issues that could affect passenger safety, then so do we. The number of unsafe vehicles that have been put back into the hands of unsuspecting motorists following collision repairs utilizing structurally inferior parts is staggering. The looming question is....who will ultimately accept responsibility for this and who will pay fot it. It is no longer a question of who will inform the public, it is when and what will be done about it when they are made aware that the vehicles they put their families in may not be safe.

Comment by Bill Fowler on February 9, 2010 at 12:30pm

I think the thing that is most amazing about this whole topic is the insane idea that a CAPA certification means anything. What are they certifying and for whom?
We all are aware that you have to let an aftermarket hood fall to close it instead of pushing it down like a real hood because it would bend if you pushed on it at all. The fit issues aside, despite the overwhelming evidence that the steel these parts were made from was in no way equal to OEM sheet metal, I am not aware that any testing of the metal has ever been done to test the strength against OEM. The question is, why not, or was I in the twilight zone when the tests were done? Why are we still continuing to debate the obvious? Aftermarket sheetmetal simply is not now, nor has it ever been, the structural equivilant of OEM sheetmetal. The fact that this difference would affect airbag timing is a no-brainer. Why has it taken this long to become an issue and what will be done about it?
When will a testing lab with any degree of integrity and neutrality test aftermarket sheetmetal and release the findings to the public? WE already know what the outcome will be and have known it for decades.

Comment by Wade Ebert on February 9, 2010 at 12:27pm

I'm looking to have Geoff Crane from Diamond Standard Parts to cut up some AM parts at our AASPI Meeting in Lisle March 13th. Come see us and - Pay your dues Jeanne, I need your lobby money. ;)

Besides hopefully Geoff's AM parts demo, we'll have Mike Anderson with a seminar and Patrick McGuire offering commentary and exchange on the current state of the industry, Litigation, NCOIL, Legislation, ILEPA, and the IL Department of Revenue.

It's time the industry answered some hard questions about itself and how we have been lax in preserving the welfare of our vehicle owner customers.

I'll make a Blog post when more detail is hammered out.

Until then, I'm working on a nice grassroots recall notice for shops to use in notifying possibly affected vehicle owners and reassuring those whose vehicles have not been made dangerous.

This is one of the best examples ever of why - no matter the popular conceptions - insurance really has nothing to do with collision repair.

Comment by Jeanne Silver on February 9, 2010 at 11:55am

I stand corrected Wade. Thanks for bringing this up. I have contacted CAPA for comment.

Comment by Wade Ebert on February 9, 2010 at 11:50am

So what is that? Mmmm let's see... 404 Untested Structural Parts that are listed on CAPA's site but are not... what's that? Oh they ARE certified by CAPA.

You know - I'm going to print that list to .pdf before it mysteriously disappears.

Comment by Wade Ebert on February 9, 2010 at 11:46am

Complete listing from CAPA'a site of Certified Radiator Supports

Comment by Wade Ebert on February 9, 2010 at 11:42am

That list was just for for what fits 2005 vehicles by the way.

Comment by Wade Ebert on February 9, 2010 at 11:41am

Well anyone who beleives CAPA does not "certify" Radiator Supports needs only to go here>

CAPA Certified Rad Supports

Comment by Mike Orton on February 5, 2010 at 1:55pm

The last time an insurer attempted to use one of these rebars or radiator supports on a customers vehicle, they claimed that "As long as we guarantee the part, it doesn't matter whether it is certified." After I educated my customers as to the parts that their insurer claimed they could have installed on their vehicle and showing them the unfair claims practices act that requires all parts specified to be at least like, kind, and quality, they had a few choice words with their claims adjuster. The insurer relented and paid for oem structural parts advising me that they were making a one time concession to the shop to which I fired off the following response.

Re: phone conversation with Staff adjuster 3/10/2008 xxxxxxxxx

Sir,

I received a phone call on March 10, 2008 inviting me to open a discussion regarding your indemnification of your policy holder and my contracted customer. In that discussion you made a statement regarding the fact that you were giving this shop a concession by allowing changes to your estimate of repairs and paper work.

Since we do not have any agreements with XXXXXXXXX Insurance and we are not a party to the contract of insurance with your policyholder we will refrain from interfering with your right to contract as you wish. We will not discuss terms of our contracted customer concerning his policy and you.

Our only obligation is to repair as per this shop’s estimate of repairs and as contracted with the vehicle owner. Any differences in our final bill to our contracted customer and your paperwork or estimate, is of no concern to this shop. We do not have a contractual agreement to “Cause a vehicle to be restored to pre accident condition” as referred to in the unfair claims practice act with parts of like, kind, and quality. As an independent contractor, we are liable for the repairs and parts we use in our contract with our customer and we will be liable for those parts being equivalent.

Since we are not required by law to reach an agreed price or to perform repairs based on an insurer’s estimate of repairs, we ask that you do not contact this shop to discuss deficiencies between your estimate of repairs and ours. We will bill our customer per our invoicing, and they may choose to use the remedy in their policy to collect any deficiencies from their own insurer.

If the vehicle owner chooses to use parts other than those we recommend, they will be required to sign a hold harmless agreement. We will not be responsible for parts specified by their insurer or the insurer’s decision to only pay for parts not made by their manufacturer that do not meet the state’s definition of like, kind, and quality regardless of whether the insurer claims to guarantee those parts. As we understand the federal trade act known as the Magnuson Moss Ferguson Act, it states that only the manufacturer of a part can guarantee that part. So how is it that an insurer is placing a guarantee on a part? We asked the Department of Insurance and the reply was that the insurer can only guarantee that their specified parts selection must be of like, kind, and quality. The insurer must insure their worthiness and equivalence as far as fit and performance. Perhaps you mean you will guarantee the choice of parts to be equivalent and not the parts themselves. This could be misinterpreted by vehicle owners. The distributor handles warranty issues on those parts. If you have a separate guarantee on those parts, I am sure the owner of the vehicle to whom we have a contract to repair, may like to examine your guarantee of those parts.

The vehicle owner will be responsible for any differences between your estimate and ours. As I mentioned and you are aware, contracts of insurance, generally gives policy holders remedy for any differences in what is required to make them whole such as proof of final invoice, the appraisal clause, and small claims court if necessary to resolve any contractual disputes. We do not know which remedy is prevalent in your contract with the xxxxxxxxxx and would encourage them to inquire of their agent any policy remedies they may have as we are not agents or licensed to practice law with regard to advising them on this matter.

I am sorry for any misunderstandings you may have had in regard to asking us to negotiate a contract of insurance for which we are not a party to or have an agreement to give concessions. I can only assume you thought you were talking to one of your contracted shops.

For the record, we did check availability of a reman bumper cover and there are none available. Reman covers are taken of the truck and twisted and bent while still in the wrapper. If the primer is intact when we unwrap, we would consider using such a part, but we believe they simply do not exist. Quality reman bumper covers that meet these criteria, which are to be designated by the state code of regulations as LKQ are kind of like Big foot; we hear they exist but we have never seen one. The part specified on your paperwork was located through a vendor known as xxxxxx Crash Parts in xxxxxxx, and they will not service the xxxxx area even if they had the part in question. We will install capa parts from time to time when it is the consumer’s choice and they sign a hold harmless agreement. But we will never install any a/m part that is not certified such as the ones you specified to your insured based on your estimate of repairs as presented by Claims Solutions.

Regards,

Mike Orton

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page