Insurance company only willing to pay for used parts

At least it's not in screw-you-no-fault-Michigan. Here your company fixes your car and his company fixes his. If you don't have collision coverage, just liability, you get nothing even it's the other guys fault. No point in putting "full" coverage on a $2500 car right? They would never pay you that much and the premium would quickly exceed the cost of the car. In the end, if you don't have collision coverage, you better have enough to buy another car in case your current one gets totaled out from under you. Even if it's not your fault, the other company gives you nothing!

I'll point out the knew the shop I went to to get the gate replaced on a Minivan, and they were upfront about getting a Previously Owned rear hatch for my van. I'm not one to quibble needlessly or demand a pricey OEM door, if it's even available. I'd check the laws in your state and re-read the contracts, first.

Javelin wrote: Not harsh at all. Have you ever had to deal with the scum-suckers (insurance in general, and the gecko in particular).

Yes, I have. Thanks.

Full disclosure, I work for an auto insurance company, and have been an appraiser in the past, as well as working in a shop, and have had several claims personally with a variety of companies, so I have seen it from all sides. I know you have very strong opinions, and that they are always right, and that I won't change your opinion, so that's fine.

Anyway, most people in this post seem to get it, while a few have their panties in a wad , and have an attitude that will make their lives needlessly difficult should then ever be in a situation that will use auto insurance.

Here's another thing, everyone that is "demanding" OEM parts instead of used parts, how do you feel about your insurance rates? Using used parts instead of OEMs keeps your rates down for several reasons. If you want only OEM parts used in your repair, you can add an endorsement to your policy to do that, and yes it will cost you more. You can also just pay the difference from the cost of a used part to the cost of an OEM part if it means so much to you.

Being part of the industry and dealing with it from all sides, I have no problem whatsoever with a used part being part of my repair, as long as the used part is of a high quality.

Sober this morning, so I should be more affable. Though I'm not apologizing for yesterday's response because the insurance-hater was basically calling me a scum sucker with his post, so we'll call it a draw.

Yes, each state is different in their laws. In my state, there is no 'right' to a new part if a suitable used one is available. You can purchase an "oem endorsement" from some insurers that negates any used or aftermarket parts being used. However, the downside to that is we frequently junk cars that would otherwise be repairable, and naturally the vehicle owner howls in protest. So there's no win-win situation.

I just don't get the resistance to used body parts, sorry. The days of rusty parts are mostly behind us. It's very rare that I get something into a shop that has corrosion issues, mostly just some dings that need fixing. If it's a really crappy part neither the shop nor I will accept it because it's simply not worth the time it takes to fix before use. Used parts are less than new, but they are far from cheap. Insurers pay top dollar for used stuff; we're not buying from the U-Pull-It. We pay for, and expect, clean used parts. At least with the used stuff there's no fitment worries like there are with aftermarket.

Aftermarket causes me more problems than used, but they are much better than they were 10-15 years ago. We put a bumper cover on a Nissan Versa this week and it fits so well I thought the shop switched it for an OEM. But, they are inconsistent. That stuff I don't defend as enthusiastically.

Without a doubt, the thing that causes the most trouble in getting a car repaired quickly and properly is the customer thinking they are experts on car repair because they read an article in Consumer Reports 10 years ago. While it varies by region, and some metro areas are much worse, in my area the shops and I work together very well to crank out a nice repair product. Neither wants a customer bitching to us about some fit problem. The problems with cars are more often repair quality issues than anything having to do with the parts.

You post an insurance thread on any message board and you'll find someone who thinks they were treated poorly by (name any insurance co). The fact that there is a USAA complaint in this thread proves that. I've worked for 3 different ones and they all can suck and excel equally at any given moment. They are a necessary evil. I hate paying premiums as much as the next guy, but when the OEM's want to rape us for a Taurus quarter panel at $1200 and the salvage yards are polluted with good used ones for $250, there's no denying the used part makes great sense.

The bottom line is that the insurance company is trying to reduce costs. If it doesn't compromise the quality of the repair, their is no problem with recyled parts. More important is who is doing the repair and the quality of their work. The OP is absolutely entitled to choose the shop. I speak from the perspective of having been in the auto body business since the early 1970's.

ddavidv wrote: I just don't get the resistance to used body parts, sorry. The days of rusty parts are mostly behind us. It's very rare that I get something into a shop that has corrosion issues, mostly just some dings that need fixing. If it's a really crappy part neither the shop nor I will accept it because it's simply not worth the time it takes to fix before use. Used parts are less than new, but they are far from cheap. Insurers pay top dollar for used stuff; we're not buying from the U-Pull-It. We pay for, and expect, clean used parts. At least with the used stuff there's no fitment worries like there are with aftermarket.

This. I'd much rather a used OE part than an aftermarket one. And Insurance's job is to make me whole. If I had a 5 year old door before, then replacing it with a 5 year old door makes me whole.

The thing that irritated me on the BMW repair I mentioned was that it called for one side of the car to be resprayed. I didn't want half the car to have new paint and half to have old paint. I tired to argue that making me whole was to have a consistent patina, as I did before. They wouldn't buy. So that's when I got creative and made the repair happen the way I wanted it to.

Our first impression was that used parts were not standard practice and that the insurance company was trying to rip us off. Good info in this thread.

ddavidv wrote: Yes, each state is different in their laws. In my state, there is no 'right' to a new part if a suitable used one is available. You can purchase an "oem endorsement" from some insurers that negates any used or aftermarket parts being used. However, the downside to that is we frequently junk cars that would otherwise be repairable, and naturally the vehicle owner howls in protest. So there's no win-win situation.

Ok, I have a question then.... What is the deal with a "beat up fender and hood" car being "totaled" or salvage titled? I've looked for cars without too much damage, like a front 1/4 collision, and they are totaled or issued salvage title. I know you can get into the whole rail and everything being pushed around, but a decent frame guy can normally get it back into shape with minimal fuss and without replacement. You can easily get into radiators, condensors, hoses, and lines for big money, but still... What gives?

Edit: Here are some examples: http://www.autorv.com/Browse.aspx?AdName=23806-530497 http://www.autorv.com/Browse.aspx?AdName=2-507380 http://www.autorv.com/Browse.aspx?AdName=11035-589686

When the Trooper got whacked from behind in 2009, the ins co tried to take it as salvage even though it was perfectly driveable. That was because the amount of the repairs exceeded the replacement value of the truck. All I wanted was the truck fixed at no cost to me and a rental until it was completed but they kept telling me that wasn't going to happen. I was NOT in a position to go buying another vehicle so I bowed up and threatened to sue; they wound up writing me a sizeable check (since I was not at fault) and I kept the truck BUT: this put me in the same spot as Dave, i.e. I had to handle my own repairs. Since I am 'in the business' I sourced my own parts and did a fair amount of the work myself. It now is titled as a salvage vehicle (which means nothing at its age) and I still have a reliable paid for vehicle that looks just fine.

This relates to the OP in this way: at no point did I or the ins co ever say 'new parts only'. I was perfectly willing to accept used parts as long as they were installed properly and in fact that's exactly what happened. I got used parts (bumpers etc), had everything painted then installed them myself. I had the rear body damge repaired by a body shop because I just was not in a position to do it myself. I wound up making money off the deal.

Ranger50 wrote:

ddavidv wrote: Yes, each state is different in their laws. In my state, there is no 'right' to a new part if a suitable used one is available. You can purchase an "oem endorsement" from some insurers that negates any used or aftermarket parts being used. However, the downside to that is we frequently junk cars that would otherwise be repairable, and naturally the vehicle owner howls in protest. So there's no win-win situation.

Ok, I have a question then.... What is the deal with a "beat up fender and hood" car being "totaled" or salvage titled? I've looked for cars without too much damage, like a front 1/4 collision, and they are totaled or issued salvage title. I know you can get into the whole rail and everything being pushed around, but a decent frame guy can normally get it back into shape with minimal fuss and without replacement. You can easily get into radiators, condensors, hoses, and lines for big money, but still... What gives?

Usually those cars are not worth much to begin with. That will also happen on rare cars with hard to find or expensive parts. Even on the cars with a "beat up fender and hood", it's going to need $500-$1000 in paint and body work. If the inner structure is bent at all, it's at least $500 to put it on a frame rack. And then there's parts. They'll use used parts, but not from a U-Pull. From a regular late-model full service yard you're looking at least $75 for the fender and $150 for the hood, if it's a cheap car. Then the body shop has to make money on the parts, so they get marked up. So say the car is a 2000 Cavalier, and the damage is JUST the hood and fender, but the apron got pushed in just ever so slightly, you're already looking at an estimate of about $1850 using the above explanation. If the estimate is 70% (I think it's 70% in Indiana, may be different elsewhere) of the value, it's totaled.

With the price of labor in body and mechanical shops these days, it doesn't take too much damage for the repair to exceed the value of the car.

In fact, all this is why collector cars have agreed value policies. I have a high agreed value on the J-H and pay an extra each year (IIRC it's something like $50.00) because I know what the parts cost. Fenders are $600 each new or used, for instance. A hood, er, bonnet? Fuggeaboudit new, used bring $500 for repairable, $1000-$1500 for nice.

In SC glass is a no deductible thing, the ins co bears the entire cost. Windshields are available new occasionally, but whoo. A new one would probably cost about what my Trooper's worth, I'd hate to see the thing totaled over a busted windshield because I was too cheap to tack on that extra $50.00 a year.

z31maniac wrote: Some of your guys attitude about insurance is laughable. "I'm pissed about a contract I voluntarily entered and didn't understand, so yeah its their fault." Wow.

This^^

Why a new part on a used vehicle? The aftermarket stuff isn't always so great anyway. Now a factory part would be great,but I don't see why an insurer should pay for a new part on an old car. I imagine if they only had to buy new factory parts our premiums would be even more inflated than they are.

I know here in MA you get to choose the repair shop, but have no say in what sort of parts the vehicle gets. I had some front end damage on my 99 B4000 years ago when it was only a 2-3 years old,and was a bit put out at first about the use of an aftermarket front bumper because I wanted my truck back to original. I understood what the adjuster was explaining to me about a used truck getting used parts though. Ultimately the body shop I choose didn't like the Chinese made aftermarket bumper,and the spoke with the adjuster who agreed to get a factory Ford part for it instead. They were not required to do so from the beginning though in my state.

Javelin wrote: Because used parts hide stuff, like previously-repaired crash damage, rust, and incompatible parts. You can claim stuff all you want, but the OP *does* have the right to declare whether or not he will accept new OEM or used parts. I've been there, done that, drove the rental for 3 months, had to have my truck inspected and declared "junk", dealt with a branded title, fought the scum-suckers, and won, okay?

Sounds like you were involved in a rare case with a shop that didn't deal with it properly, and now think that's the norm. I'm not an insurance defender, and generally think they're out to screw me. I do work for a full service late model salvage yard, and work with a lot of body shops and insurance companies. I will say that most of the body shops with insurance deals will not take anything with damage...period. If they go to prep the door and find that it has filler, I get a call and we have to send them another one. If there's unnoticed damage and the part doesn't fit right, I get a call and we send them another one. I have seen insurance companies write an estimate with used parts, then by the time the repair is scheduled the parts they figured on the estimate are no longer available or damaged. If they can't find the parts at a similar price (or at all) and have to go new, they will sometimes have to total the car. In these cases I have seen the shops use damaged parts, with the owners consent, just to keep the vehicle from being totaled. It sounds like this might have been what happened to you, except they went around the whole "owner consent" thing. That is not normal procedure.

In reply to 16vCorey:

No PnP's here to get anything cheap. I am talking less then 4yr old vehicles normally.

Body shop part markup is or has been normally already been included in the estimate from the adjuster in my experience. The invoice will say the fender was $200, but the shop only paid $160 for it, straight from personal experience.

I'm just wondering if it is an adjuster/estimator problem? Cantankerous "customers"? Body shops that shouldn't be in business anyways?

z31maniac wrote: Some of your guys attitude about insurance is laughable. "I'm pissed about a contract I voluntarily entered and didn't understand, so yeah its their fault." Wow.

stop and reconsider for a moment ... auto ins ISN'T something any of us necessarily enter into voluntarily..... the state requires it .... in most states maybe all by now.... ( at one time in Tenn you could post a bond to get out of liability ins)

Sonic wrote: If you want only OEM parts used in your repair, you can add an endorsement to your policy to do that, and yes it will cost you more.

that's all well and good ( good as in ... if that's what you want you gotta pay ) if you're dealing with your own ins co authorizing / paying for the repairs... you didn't address the OP's situation ... where the other party is at fault and their ins co is the one doing the paying ......

I'd imagine that specifying new parts would make it more likely to have the vehicle totaled out.

wbjones wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Some of your guys attitude about insurance is laughable. "I'm pissed about a contract I voluntarily entered and didn't understand, so yeah its their fault." Wow.

stop and reconsider for a moment ... auto ins ISN'T something any of us necessarily enter into voluntarily..... the state requires it .... in most states maybe all by now.... ( at one time in Tenn you could post a bond to get out of liability ins)

I'd have to disagree.

Most states require liability, not comprehensive. Anyone who is complaining about their insurance company not making repairs to their own vehicle is probably referring to a comprehensive policy.

That's voluntary.

I know there are some exceptions, but most of the time it's voluntary.

In reply to SVreX:

I know it's heaven forbid here, but people are required to have comp and collision of varying deductibles if you are making payments on a vehicle to protect the loan holders interests. That is NOT voluntary.

So if I am making payments on said vehicle aren't I making a it better for the loan holder by keeping their interests in place by asking for OEM parts?

Up to a point. New cars depreciate quickly. Under those circumstances, the check from the insurance company must be endorsed by the owner, the lienholder and an insurance company rep before it can be cashed. More than once I have had to send a repaired car to a lienholder for their inspection to make sure it's to their standards or they won't endorse the check.

I bought a civic in 2002, it had 4 miles on the odometer. In 2003 I was hit by a deer; it hit me... In the rear door. Insurance specified "new oem quality". That door did not fit right and I was always trying to rehang it to get it to fit right. In 2006 the door started rusting from the inside out. The body shop who did the work and my insurance company got together and found a "salvage" yard door. It was perfect and fit and finish matched my car.

My experience with aftermarket body parts is pretty shady, I would prefer a good used body part to match.

Hope everyone is OK.

So if I get hit, demand higher price or OEM parts, ask them to cut the check to me, have a lowball shop do the repair or do it myself, in the end "making" money on the deal am I committing some kind of fraud by accepting the $ and not using the higher priced/OEM parts?

wbjones wrote:

Sonic wrote: If you want only OEM parts used in your repair, you can add an endorsement to your policy to do that, and yes it will cost you more.

that's all well and good ( good as in ... if that's what you want you gotta pay ) if you're dealing with your own ins co authorizing / paying for the repairs... you didn't address the OP's situation ... where the other party is at fault and their ins co is the one doing the paying ......

If you have that endorsement, that implies that there is also collision coverage. If you have collision coverage, you can use it in any situation, your fault or not. In this case, where it is someone else's fault, you can use your own collision coverage to have the car fixed the way you want it, and then your ins co will bill the at fault company, called Subrogation. They will work out the details, but at least it gets your car fixed the way you want it, with a minimum of hassle to you. It will still be a not at fault loss.

vwcorvette wrote: So if I get hit, demand higher price or OEM parts, ask them to cut the check to me, have a lowball shop do the repair or do it myself, in the end "making" money on the deal am I committing some kind of fraud by accepting the $ and not using the higher priced/OEM parts?

No, but don't expect them to pay for the OEM parts again if you get hit in that area again.

Really, you don't even need to fix the car at all. They have paid you to get you back to whole, if you choose to put that money into repairing the car, or chose to use it to go on vacation or smoke crack and still have a busted ass car, that's your choice.