The Hartford has told its network of direct repair program shops to now consider “same-series” recycled parts older than the actual policyholder’s vehicle being repaired.
Prior to the switch, the insurer only allowed recycled parts the “same year or newer” to be used on the customer’s vehicle.
“The Hartford recently revised its policy for recycled cosmetic parts, such as hoods and bumpers, to include parts from the same vehicle series,” Hartford spokesman Thomas Hambrick confirmed in an email last week.
The change was disseminated through an email to Customer Repair Service Program collision repairers shared with us last month.
Parts in the same series are identical, and an older part will fit a newer vehicle within that design or refresh generation, and vice versa. Opening up the field could help source more used parts — argued by recyclers to be better than new aftermarket alternatives — quickly for Hartford customers, thereby getting their cars fixed faster.
“Series is a part which was produced following the same process as the part it is intended to replace,” the Hartford wrote to repairers. “For example a Ford Pick Up fender from 2009 – 2014 was produced using the same identical stamping process, if we have a loss with a 2013 Pick Up todays’ standard outlines we would only consider a 2013 or 2014 year recycled part potentially reducing any available 2009 – 2012 choice which is an exact fit bolt on made following the same process.”
The Hartford in its note to DRP shops also observed that dealers and aftermarket suppliers would sell a part that old to a shop anyway.
“It should be noted that OE dealers AM suppliers for that same part would sell that part stamped in 2009 for any order up to 2014 as ‘New OE’ as the procurement process doesn’t have any age requirement or age indicator just the OE Part number ensuring the same fit & finish.”
However, the collision repairer, who requested anonymity given the DRP relationship, argued that a part older than the vehicle would have experienced more wear and weathering given its longer time on the road or in a salvage facility (which might not have the same part-protection conditions as a dealership warehouse).
Design or refresh generations can last a while. Besides the Ford example mentioned by Hartford, we recently covered the Jeep Compass, hits its next generation for the 2017 model year after being introduced for MY 2006 and refreshed for MY 2011.
“The Hartford is committed helping get its customers back on the road as soon as possible and will never compromise safety or quality of a repair,” Hambrick said in response to such age-related concerns. “We expect shops in our direct repair program to develop fair and accurate estimates to complete quality repairs. We believe that expanding the potential population of a parts search to include all years of a vehicle series will increase the number of quality parts options for repairs. As always, to demonstrate our commitment to quality, The Hartford guarantees the workmanship of repairs completed by our direct repair shops for as long as our customers own their vehicles.”
This controversy might to some degree resolve itself. Former Mitchell industry relations Vice President Greg Horn pointed out at NACE that OEMs might be refreshing vehicles more frequently than in the past, which would for at least some parts reduce the number of years in a series. (While this could complicate life for aftermarket manufacturers, it’s probably good for recyclers, as smaller runs of parts make the used versions a hotter — and pricier — commodity.)
The Hartford Insurance Drp Program
And of course, if modders and owners someday start customizing cars through 3-D printing of cosmetic components — or a local OEM-sanctioned printer spits out replacements — all bets might be off.
More information:
The Hartford, fall 2016
Images:
The Hartford’s logo. (Provided by the Hartford)
The Hartford has told its network of direct repair program shops to now consider “same-series” recycled parts older than the actual policyholder’s vehicle being repaired. (Hartford email provided to Repairer Driven News)
How is the value of my total loss vehicle determined?
Hartford Auto Insurance Drp Program
In order to determine whether a vehicle is repairable or is a total loss, the claim handler will consider whether the cost to repair the vehicle exceeds a certain threshold percentage of the vehicle's total value. Each state has its own thresholds. The factors that a claim handler will consider to determine whether a vehicle is a total loss include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Actual cash value (ACV) and salvage value
- State laws or regulations that provide guidance on how to determine the vehicle market value
- Mileage, vehicle options, and condition
- Previous damage not related to the accident
- New Car Replacement Cost Coverage*
Vehicle's market value (as determined by factors listed above) | $15,000 |
Assume sales tax is applicable (use 5% for this example) | $750 |
Your deductible (assume $500) | -$500 |
ACV (what The Hartford pays) | $15,250 |
Please note that the ACV calculation is for illustrative purposes only. Each policy and claim is different. Your claim handler will address circumstances unique to your claim (such as endorsements, arrangements with your lien holder, if sales tax is applicable, etc.).
*New Car Replacement Cost Coverage is subject to deductible and availability and applies within the first 15 months from the date of the new car purchase or 15,000 miles (whichever occurs first). Please review your policy for restrictions.
The Connecticut Supreme Court on July 13 unanimously overturned nearly $35 million in damages against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company.
In its 18-page decision, the Supreme Court said the lower court had incorrectly concluded that the Hartford Fire violated the state’s unfair trade practices law when it paid auto repair shops agreed-upon labor rates that the plaintiffs claim are lower than the actual value of the shops’ services.
The IR2110/IR2113 are high voltage, high speed power MOSFET and. Please refer to our Application Notes and DesignTips for proper circuit board layout. The input/output logic timing diagram is shown in figure 1. Logic input for low side gate driver output (LO), in phase. Ir2110 mosfet driver circuit diagram. Jump to IR2110 as a low side MOSFET driver - IR2110 as a low side MOSFET driver only. Its all from. Please could you send me the schematic? Jan 20, 2013 - In half-bridge circuits, we have 1 high-side MOSFET and 1 low-side MOSFET. First let's take a look at the block diagram and the pin assignments. 5 - Basic IR2110 circuit for driving half-bridge (click on image to enlarge). The VCC is directly connected to the drain of internal MOSFET of low side driver(as shown in internal circuit diagram of IR2110) and it can be in between 10V to.
The plaintiffs, Artie’s Auto Body, A & R Body Specialty, Skrip’s Auto Body, and the Auto Body Association of Connecticut brought the class action in 2003 against the Hartford Fire on behalf of more than 1,000 independent auto body repair shops in Connecticut.
Following a trial in 2009, the Superior Court jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $14,765,556 in compensatory damages. Later, the trial court awarded plaintiffs $20,000,000 in punitive damages and rendered judgment for plaintiffs in the total amount of $34,765,556. The Supreme Court’s July 13 decision overturns the lower court ruling as well as the monetary damages.
The plaintiffs had filed the class action asserting that the Hartford Fire, when appraising auto body damage sustained by its insureds, engaged in unfair trade practices by requiring its appraisers to use artificially low labor rates agreed on by the insurer and the plaintiff auto body shops. The plaintiffs said the rates agreed upon by participating auto body shops were lower than the rates that more accurately reflect the actual value of the services provided.
According to court documents, the appraisers, when negotiating with auto body repair shops on behalf of the Hartford Fire, used the hourly labor rate that the insurer paid to shops that were part of the insurer’s direct repair program (DRP). Under this program, auto body repair shops contractually agreed to perform repairs at an hourly labor rate set by the Hartford Fire in return for “a steady stream of customer referrals.”
In 2000, the DRP labor rate was about $41 per hour. In 2009, during the time of the trial, the rate rose to around $46 per hour. The DRP rate was significantly lower than the $65-to-$78 hourly labor rates that were posted in the plaintiff auto body shops during the time of trial. However, the DRP hourly labor rates were equal to the rates that other insurance companies in Connecticut paid for auto body repair services, the court papers showed.
In addition, the Supreme Court stated in its July 13 ruling that regarding the auto body repair services purchased in Connecticut, almost all of those services are purchased by insurance companies. And since most of plaintiff auto body shops’ businesses are insurance-related, it is “exceedingly rare” for these shops to be paid their posted hourly labor rates.
The Supreme Court said the trial court incorrectly concluded that the Hartford Fire violated the state’s unfair trade practices law. The Supreme Court further noted that under the regulatory provisions, auto shop owners are deemed to be “capable of representing their own interests, and certainly are under no obligation to accept insurance related work that is not sufficiently remunerative.”
“It would be patently unreasonable, and result in an inherently contradictory regulatory scheme, for us to conclude both that the defendant is lawfully permitted to determine the hourly labor rate that it is willing to pay for auto body repairs and that the defendant’s appraisers are ethically required to disregard that determination when negotiating on the defendant’s behalf,” the Supreme Court stated.
The Supreme Court stated that the trial court judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendant.
The case is Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. et al. vs. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, No. 19219, the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Want to stay up to date?
Get the latest insurance news
sent straight to your inbox.
- Categories:East NewsTopics:auto repair shop labor rate, auto repair shop labor rate dispute, auto repair shops, Connecticut Supreme Court, Connecticut unfair trade practices law, Hartford Fire Insurance Company
- Have a hot lead? Email us at [email protected]