$17M Jury Award Against American Family Mutual Reinstated
Midwest News • May 6, 2009
A Missouri appeals court has reinstated a $17 million jury award in a class action lawsuit against American Family Mutual Insurance Co. over aftermarket vehicle parts.
The Missouri Court of ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: simple solution
Posted On: May 6, 2009, 6:50 pm CDT
Posted By: Wade Ebert
Comment:
Read my previous message mysterious "caveat emptor".
I laugh at your premise that the DOI or even BAR has or even could have any oversight of a repairer's charges let alone set pricing.
How about we make it a "law" that repairers work solely for the folks who turn the keys in the ignition? Whoops! It already is the law? Yup! Sure is. Perhaps that is something you forgot?
Please do go on and tell me how the insurer is your customer! Be sure also to tell me how you apply the limitations of DRP contracts to first and third party losses separately.
Whoops! Don't know the difference between first and third parties!!!? Time to read up on those DRP agreements and maybe take a business law class at the ol junior college.
Now every one reading here who wants to hang their hats on "the contract" please tell me what "public policy" is. For our purposes here's your hint: it's the "at least equal in terms of fit quality and performance" part. You see for the public good even a contract has limitations. Some applied by law or code directly.
Next tell me how much of any insurance policy and for that matter any insurance administrative code applies to a third party loss. The answer barring very few exceptions is *none*.
The problem we see here folks is similar to that seen relative to health care issues - where the actual services have become blurred with the financial services for those services.
In short, most have forgotten that health insurance is *not* health care. For our purposes vehicle insurance is *not* vehicle repair.
In fact - What MY AG has said is that what repairers *should* be doing is limited to repairing cars and getting paid. They *should not* be representing vehicle owners in negotiations with insurers (whether first or third party) nor should they be engaged in any agreement which compromises their contract with - and duty to - the vehicle owner. That duty being the full complement of thier expertise relative to the repair. Period.
So let's separate insurance from repair shall we? Any inference that any DOI has oversight, that the BAR or any such like organization can set pricing - or that repairs and insurance are linked in any way is purely folly.
Subject: RE: simple solution
I laugh at your premise that the DOI or even BAR has or even could have any oversight of a repairer's charges let alone set pricing.
How about we make it a "law" that repairers work solely for the folks who turn the keys in the ignition? Whoops! It already is the law? Yup! Sure is. Perhaps that is something you forgot?
Please do go on and tell me how the insurer is your customer! Be sure also to tell me how you apply the limitations of DRP contracts to first and third party losses separately.
Whoops! Don't know the difference between first and third parties!!!? Time to read up on those DRP agreements and maybe take a business law class at the ol junior college.
Now every one reading here who wants to hang their hats on "the contract" please tell me what "public policy" is. For our purposes here's your hint: it's the "at least equal in terms of fit quality and performance" part. You see for the public good even a contract has limitations. Some applied by law or code directly.
Next tell me how much of any insurance policy and for that matter any insurance administrative code applies to a third party loss. The answer barring very few exceptions is *none*.
The problem we see here folks is similar to that seen relative to health care issues - where the actual services have become blurred with the financial services for those services.
In short, most have forgotten that health insurance is *not* health care. For our purposes vehicle insurance is *not* vehicle repair.
In fact - What MY AG has said is that what repairers *should* be doing is limited to repairing cars and getting paid. They *should not* be representing vehicle owners in negotiations with insurers (whether first or third party) nor should they be engaged in any agreement which compromises their contract with - and duty to - the vehicle owner. That duty being the full complement of thier expertise relative to the repair. Period.
So let's separate insurance from repair shall we? Any inference that any DOI has oversight, that the BAR or any such like organization can set pricing - or that repairs and insurance are linked in any way is purely folly.