Writing Quality Decisions: Damage Disputes

Transcription

1 Writing Quality Decisions: Damage Disputes Wording Aid

2 2 Table of Contents Rental...3 Damages Not Disputed Properly (Rule 2-5)...4 Prior Damages Prior Damages Rental and Betterment... 6 Towing, Storage, and Rental... 7 Labor Rates and Parts...7 Reasonable Related Damages... 8 Total Loss Method... 9 Finish, Sand, and Buff Damages Not Supported Alternative Parts...10

3 3 Decision Explanation Examples of Some of the Most Common Damage Disputes Note: These are examples and should only be used as a training reference to help ensure your explanation includes an explanation of the influential evidence item(s) what it contained and/or how it factored into the decision. Please remember to use company names for clarity when writing decisions. In the following examples, Alpha is the Applicant and Beta is the Respondent. Rental Alpha contends the damages and repairs completed support the hazardous waste removal and the color, sand, and buff operation that was allowed. It contends the fact that a supplement was needed and supports the 19 days for rental allowed. Beta states it has not received documentation from Alpha to support its rental damages. It states based on the labor hours needed to repair the damages, it would concede nine days of rental. Beta contends it does not owe for the color, sand, and buff operation, stating it did not receive photos to support the completion of this operation. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on Beta s acceptance of liability. Alpha proved $2, (Reduced Damages). The make and model of the vehicle supports the allowance of the color, sand, and buff operation. The allowance of hazardous waste removal is customary, and these damages are owed to Alpha. The damages do not support 19 days of rental allowed. The nine days allowed for rental is considered reasonable. Beta owes nine days of rental at Alpha s rental rate of $45.00 per day. *Damages* Alpha s damages: $3,325.73, less Beta s payment: -$2,386.73, less unsupported rental: -$ ($ $450.00) = remaining damages owed Alpha: $ Alpha submitted its supplement, but it did not provide a breakdown of what damages were not noted on the original estimate. The supplement shows every operation as a supplemental item, so

4 4 it could not be determined if the supplement would have caused a delay to the repair. The rental documentation noted the vehicle was drivable, supporting that all parts should have been ordered and received prior to the scheduling of the repair. The labor hours on the estimate support a nineday repair, and Alpha was awarded nine days of rental. It is customary to allow for the completion of the color, sand, and buff operation based on the make and model of Alpha s vehicle. Alpha is not required to provide photos of every operation completed for a particular repair. Damages Not Disputed Properly (Rule 2-5) Beta did not agree with the total loss settlement in this case. Alpha filed to recover unpaid total loss damages. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on liability was not disputed. Alpha proved $11, (All Damages); Alpha proved gross total loss settlement charges in the amount of $11, Beta paid $10,811.87, leaving a difference of $1, The information Beta provided within the damage dispute section did not qualify as a complete argument for the reduction of damages. According to Rule 2-5, the Arbitrator can only consider the information located within the damage section. The Arbitrator cannot refer to the contentions or evidence for clarification. This decision is at the discretion of the Arbitrator and not subject to (Rule 4-2) review. Alpha proved damages by way of the total loss documentation that was submitted as evidence. Prior Damages 1 Alpha contends the repairs allowed were reasonable and that the repairs are in line with the damages from this loss. It states it has received a partial payment from Beta, and it is seeking to

5 5 recover its unpaid damages. Beta contends that Alpha is seeking recovery for damages that were not a part of this loss. Beta states it inspected the vehicle and that it has paid for the loss-related damages, including Alpha s supplement for the left door damages. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on Beta s acceptance of liability. Alpha proved $1, (All Damages). Beta did not support the vehicle had prior losses to the same area where it impacted Alpha s vehicle. It was not supported that Alpha allowed for the repair of prior damages, including the rock chip damages Beta noted on the hood. Alpha is awarded its remaining damages for this loss, less Beta s prior payments. Beta s documentation did not support its contention that Alpha s vehicle had previously been struck in the same area as this loss. Alpha submitted its vehicle photos and its insured s statement. The damages seen in the photos are consistent with the loss facts. The repairs allowed are supported by the damages seen in the photos. Beta submitted its payment proofs to support that in addition to its payment that was issued to Alpha totaling $325.40, a second payment totaling $ was issued to Alpha s insured. Beta supported that both payments have been honored, and it was given credit for these payments. Prior Damages 2 Beta disputed the severity of damages in this case, stating the door panel in question also contained unrelated prior damages. Alpha filed to recover unpaid damages. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on liability was not disputed.

6 6 Alpha proved $0.00 (Reduced Damages); Alpha failed to prove the unpaid balance was the result of Beta s negligence. Alpha and Beta inspected this vehicle. Upon its inspection, Beta noted a dent-type impact in the middle of the right front door. It also noted sideswipe-type damages to the upper and lower door panel, as well as the other surrounding panels. A review of all submitted photos revealed two very distinct points of impact (matching Beta s version of the loss). There was no evidence to show that Beta s insured impacted this vehicle more than once and in two different manners. Based upon the evidence provided, Beta has already refunded 100% of the reasonable damages owed. Rental and Betterment Beta did not agree with the cost of repair or the length of rental sought in this case. Alpha filed to recover 100% of its collision and rental charges. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on liability was not disputed. Alpha proved $5, (All Damages). Alpha proved gross collision in the amount of $4,864.60, plus rental in the amount of $810.00, for total damages equaling $5, Beta applied betterment to this repair, but it did not indicate it inspected the vehicle. As parts do not wear at a universal rate, betterment is best applied after a personal inspection. Beta disputed the length of rental. Alpha provided the estimate and adjuster notes as evidence. When considering the non-drive days, repair days, weekend days, supplement days, holiday time, and down time, the full $ amount is supported.

7 7 Towing, Storage, and Rental Alpha contends it has submitted documentation to support its storage damages. It states its vehicle was not drivable and contends the rental allowed was reasonable, based on the repairs that were completed. Beta contends the damages support a 16-day repair. It states it is willing to pay for 22 days of rental, but contends the 27 days for rental Alpha allowed was excessive. Beta states it did not receive documentation from Alpha to support its storage damages. Beta states it understands the vehicle was towed from the accident scene to a tow yard, but noted it needs documentation to support the damages incurred. Beta contends the two supplements totaling $ ($ $98.62) appear to be reasonable, and it states it owes for these damages. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on Beta s acceptance of liability. Alpha proved $9, (All Damages). Alpha supported the storage damages noted on the estimate for the towing and storing of the vehicle, and it is awarded these damages. The damages and the repairs required to complete this repair, plus the fact the vehicle was not drivable and several supplements were completed, supports the 27 days allowed for the rental. These damages are owed to Alpha. Alpha submitted its photos and estimate to support its vehicle was not drivable. It submitted its towing and storage documentation, showing these damages totaled $304.00, as noted on the estimate. The photos and documentation helped to support the towing and storage damages that were incurred. The labor hours on the estimate and the fact that the vehicle was not drivable, plus the fact two supplements were needed, support the rental Alpha allowed. Labor Rates and Parts Alpha contends the labor rates it allowed for this repair were fair and reasonable. It contends Beta has not presented it with a copy of its audit in order to address Beta s other reductions. Alpha is seeking its unpaid damages. Beta is disputing the labor rates allowed for Alpha s repair, stating it owes fair and reasonable damages. It contends it was able to locate an alternative

8 8 replacement part for the replacement of the damaged wheel. Beta contends damages are owed based on the cost of the wheel it was able to locate. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on Beta s acceptance of liability. Alpha proved $12, (All Damages). Alpha supported it searched for and used alternative replacement parts and it is owed damages based on the parts it used for this repair. It also supported its labor rates allowed for this repair, and it is awarded its remaining damages for this loss. Alpha s estimate supports the labor rates it allowed for this repair. Beta s documentation did not show that the labor rates allowed for this repair were excessive, based on the geographic location of the repair. Damages were awarded based on Alpha s negotiated labor rates. Alpha s estimate supported that it searched for and used alternative replacement parts for this repair. Alpha is not required to use Beta s parts vendors or a specific type of alternative replacement part. Alpha supported it made a reasonable attempt to reduce its repair costs by searching for and using less expensive parts. Damages were awarded based on the parts Alpha could locate for this repair. Reasonable Related Damages Alpha contends the repairs it has allowed were in compliance with industry-accepted guidelines and practices. It is seeking to recover its unpaid damages. Beta contends the photos Alpha submitted to it do not support the damages to the trans oil cooler and the rear body panel. It states due to the adjustment made for the rear body panel damages, it adjusted the corrosion protection and clear coat allowance. Beta contends due to it not allowing the trans oil cooler damages, it does not owe for the replacement of the transmission oil. Beta contends most paint manufacturers include the flex additive with the paint and states it does not owe for the additional allowance of the flex additive.

9 9 Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on Beta admitting it is fully responsible for this loss. Alpha proved $4, (All Damages). Alpha supported its rear body panel damages and the damages to the trans oil cooler. It also supported its allowance of the flex additive. Alpha is owed for these damages, plus the associated corrosion protection and clear coat labor. Alpha submitted its estimate and photos. The severity of the damages seen in its photos and the scope of the repairs noted on its estimate support the rear body panel and trans oil cooler damages. Alpha supported these damages, plus the associated operations. The allowance of flex additive is customary for this type of damage and repair. The amount allowed for the flex additive is considered reasonable. Total Loss Method Alpha contends it is owed damages based on the value it established for its vehicle that was deemed a total loss. Beta is disputing the actual cash value (ACV) that Alpha used to settle this loss. Beta states it inspected the vehicle and noted the total loss evaluation it used to establish the vehicle s value is more accurate than Alpha s total loss method. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on Beta s acceptance of liability. Alpha proved $5, (All Damages). Alpha supported the ACV it used to settle the total loss of its vehicle, and it is awarded its remaining damages.

10 10 Both companies submitted their total loss evaluations to support the ACVs they established for the loss vehicle. The valuation methods the companies used are both recognized as valid total loss valuation methods; however, Alpha is not bound by Beta s method. Finish, Sand, and Buff Damages not Supported Alternative Parts Alpha contends the repairs allowed were reasonable, and it is disputing Beta s reductions relating to the types of parts that were used for the repair or the allowance of the finish, sand, and buff operation. Beta is disputing Alpha s allowance of the finish, sand, and buff operation, contending this operation was allowed due to the body shop s inadequate equipment or refinishing practices. It states it inspected the vehicle and did not note damage to the left fender. It states Alpha has not supported these damages. Beta contends it was able to locate alternative replacement parts that Alpha should have used to complete this repair. Beta admits 100% liability. Alpha proved 100% liability against Beta based on Beta s acceptance of liability. Alpha proved $4, (All Damages). Alpha supported that it searched for and used alternative replacement parts for this repair, and it is owed damages based on the parts it used to complete the repair. Alpha supported the damages to the left fender, and the damage is supported by the front bumper damage. It is owed for the repair of the left fender. The allowance of the finish, sand, and buff operation is customary, since the body shop is unable to replicate the factories refinishing processes. Alpha s estimate supports it attempted to locate and use alternative replacement parts for this repair. It is not required to use Beta s parts suppliers, and Alpha is owed damages based on the parts it was able to locate for this repair. Alpha submitted its photos to support the left fender damages, and the damages are in line with the front bumper damages.