So ... my husband was rear-ended in April, completely the other persons fault. We provided all necessary paperwork to their insurance company - the adjuster took pictures - etc ... and we received a quote and a check. Here is the kicker: they have a list of approved places that we can take the car for repair or, we can take the check, go somewhere else, and pay the difference -BUT the quote they gave us was ridiculous! They had labor at $28/hr when in my area the average cost is $48-$75/hr, and the parts are low balled too. We had an estimate done through our insurance, and it was a full $1000 MORE than what this rinky dink place offered. We have received one "too bad" response from them ... but we are considering further action. Anyone know what recourse we have? I have tried the BBB and this place has bad reviews. Thanks in advance!
Insurance is Low-balling on Quote - Help
- Thread starter cjsummers
- Start date
What state is this in? I'm sending my clients there if you can get body work done for $48-$75 an hour!!!!
Most insurance companies pay standard rates and book time for labor. This is pretty set, if they lowballed this, then ask for the supplement (have the body shop do it).
For parts, they always lowball these. With some exceptions they use 3rd party or even 'used' parts to repair the car, they are not obligated to replace with OEM stuff, unless you pay extra for the policy. You do have to be able to get the parts for the price they pay though.
Body shops deal with this all the time. They know how to get the extra money out of the insurance company.
Dan
Most insurance companies pay standard rates and book time for labor. This is pretty set, if they lowballed this, then ask for the supplement (have the body shop do it).
For parts, they always lowball these. With some exceptions they use 3rd party or even 'used' parts to repair the car, they are not obligated to replace with OEM stuff, unless you pay extra for the policy. You do have to be able to get the parts for the price they pay though.
Body shops deal with this all the time. They know how to get the extra money out of the insurance company.
Dan
- 11,997
In NY that hurts your claim history. Better off getting the liable company to do it from the start. The shop should be able to direct bill for the balance of the work.
- 4,132
Is the poster in NY? or is this a tangent? It may depend state by state, in mine (WA) if you are hit, your repairs are where ever you want at a licensed repair or you can take a check. But it is your choice, not theirs.
Call your office of the insurance commissioner and file a complaint there. It is the cheapest and probably more effective than the cost of getting a lawyer and paying that expense, as the OIC will inquire directly with the carrier to ask what the story is.... usually, at least every time I've used them, the resolution is very quick.
Call your office of the insurance commissioner and file a complaint there. It is the cheapest and probably more effective than the cost of getting a lawyer and paying that expense, as the OIC will inquire directly with the carrier to ask what the story is.... usually, at least every time I've used them, the resolution is very quick.
- 11,997
C'mon Larry, you're calling what I'm saying a tangent and then you're saying to go to the insurance commissioner and filing a complaint instead of just talking to the carrier?
Why waste the time of your insurance company if the liable company should be paying it direct anyway? Usually they will cut a check and then if you want to go elsewhere the body shop will get paid directly from the carrier. That's the way it works in NY and VA. You're adding that it works the same way in WA and I'm sure Dan can let us now if it works that way in California.
Again, why waste the time of your insurance carrier or the state insurance commissioner when it can probably be handled directly with the liable company if the OP just picks up the phone and calls them?
- 4,132
josh?
From the original post it sounds like poster already tried communicating with the carrier and rebuffed. So yea, I agree with you up until that point. If the carrier refused to pay the costs of repair and the claimant already tried to get it resloved with the Carrier, wouldn't the OIC be a "free" optional choice to use?
From the original post it sounds like poster already tried communicating with the carrier and rebuffed. So yea, I agree with you up until that point. If the carrier refused to pay the costs of repair and the claimant already tried to get it resloved with the Carrier, wouldn't the OIC be a "free" optional choice to use?
"We have received one "too bad" response from them ... "
"Why waste the time of your insurance company if the liable company should be paying it direct anyway? "
Never ever said go to your own company about the matter? is this for someone else?
Never ever said go to your own company about the matter? is this for someone else?
"when it can probably be handled directly with the liable company if the OP just picks up the phone and calls them? "
Sounds like they already tried that though and the company said 'too bad"? Is it just me, but could you have missed a little bit of detail in the statement by the original poster?
cheers.
Sounds like they already tried that though and the company said 'too bad"? Is it just me, but could you have missed a little bit of detail in the statement by the original poster?
cheers.
- 11,997
Larry, the OP didn't say anything about a response from the carrier other than the "take the check and go somewhere else and pay the difference". As you and I both know, in most states, the rest of that sentence is "and then the carrier will reimburse for the difference in cost". We also both know that most reputable body shops handle this situation all the time and will take the check and then direct bill the carrier for the rest. The OP hasn't said *anything* about talking to the carrier since they got the check and were told they could go to another shop if they'd like. That list of shops is probably just a list of ones already approved to take direct pay.
It was in response to something FullAuto said that was relevant for the discussion.
You're assuming they're denying to pay it. Why waste the governments time without checking to see if a reputable body shop of the claimants choice would handle direct pay from the carrier and if they carrier would agree to that? It may have just been a miscommunication, there is no reason to jump straight to the DOI/OIC/whatever a given state calls it. Let's also not ignore that if it's a simple miscommunication the OP would be better off anyway because they could just go have their car fixed. The hard part is over, the carrier already accepted full responsibility. This sounds like a routine claim and it sounds like the OP missed a step about being able to go to the shop of their choice and have the carrier direct pay the shop.
Is it just me, but could you have missed a little bit of detail in the statement by the original poster?
cheers.
It was in response to something FullAuto said that was relevant for the discussion.
You're assuming they're denying to pay it. Why waste the governments time without checking to see if a reputable body shop of the claimants choice would handle direct pay from the carrier and if they carrier would agree to that? It may have just been a miscommunication, there is no reason to jump straight to the DOI/OIC/whatever a given state calls it. Let's also not ignore that if it's a simple miscommunication the OP would be better off anyway because they could just go have their car fixed. The hard part is over, the carrier already accepted full responsibility. This sounds like a routine claim and it sounds like the OP missed a step about being able to go to the shop of their choice and have the carrier direct pay the shop.
Is it just me, but could you have missed a little bit of detail in the statement by the original poster?
cheers.
Similar threads
