AutoMuse®

I’ve received a number of comments from people about the Collision Repair Code of Ethics and have asked permission to share those comments here so that others can consider them. Don’t forget, you can comment directly here at AutoMuse® — after signing in. Comments don’t appear immediately, unfortunately, because of spammers. Real comments get posted — even when they disagree or are controversial — so don’t hesitate to post because you have a different opinion.

A quick scan of your code of ethics brought to my attention the part that speaks to damage analysis. I believe that your expectation on that matter and the 10% deviation is unrealistic. I notice also the absence of any discussion of a professional being compensated for this damage analysis. I believe that need be part of any document such as this that outlines the professional conduct of the trade. I will review more and forward comments unless you are not interested. Thank you for letting me be part of this process…

Mark Cobb
Cobb’s Inc D/B/A Cobb’s Collision Center
Accident Inspection Services
7 Heathwood Drive
Windham, ME 04062

While attending some outstanding presentations on the first day of the Coalition for Collision Repair Excellence (CCRE) fall seminar in October of 2006, I realized that one of the significant impediments the collision repair industry faced in business was that it had no uniform principles governing ethical conduct. I was extremely troubled by that fact given that we all put our lives in the hands of collision repairers on a consistent basis. Even if the vehicle you are driving has never been involved in an accident, what do you know about the condition or safety of the vehicle on the road in front of you, in the opposite lane, or carpooling your kids to soccer practice? As I have often said, if attorneys or accountants act unethically, the typical result is that someone loses money. But if doctors or collision repairers act unethically, people can die.

With that thought in mind, I set about creating the first-ever Collision Repair Code of Ethics. It is designed as a framework for collision repairers nationwide to adopt governing principles for ethical behaviors of those involved in the industry and to establish a mechanism of self-governance to ensure those ethical mandates are met. I offer it as a set of principles that can be molded and adapted to meet the requirements of each state’s laws, and to assist industry members to address conflicts and pressures they experience from outside interests.

I have little doubt that the Collision Repair Code of Ethics will spark significant discussion within the collision repair industry. To assist in that discussion, there is a conference organized by ACAR scheduled October 19^th, 2007 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Information about how to participate at this historic meeting is available here. ACAR Conference Information

Thank you to all of the people who provided information for the development and refining of the Collision Repair Code of Ethics – particularly Wade Ebert of American Autobody in Springfield, Illinois, whose insight is always meaningful.

If you are or have been a party claiming diminished value against a Progressive insured in Connecticut, you might have been put off by a misleading statement by a Progressive claims representative. One such claimant’s attorney was told blatantly that the Connecticut Insurance Department refuses to allow insurers to offer diminished value coverage, and, therefore, no diminished value claims can be paid. CT Diminished Value Correspondence

Say, what?

Here is “Claims Specialist” Heather Hinckley’s July 9, 2007 response to a third party claimant’s demand for the inherent diminished value suffered as a result of a Progressive insured’s negligence:

At this time, the State of Connecticut, Department of Insurance does not allow Progressive Insurance or any other company to sell Diminished Value coverage for a vehicle. As the State doesn’t allow sales of the Diminished Value coverage, we are not able to afford Diminished value coverage. For these reasons, but not limited thereto, Progressive Insurance must respectfully deny your claim for damages. I am sorry that I could not advise you more favorably regarding this matter, but trust that you will understand our position.

Counsel for the claimant took the issue up with the Connecticut Insurance Department, which responded on September 26, 2007 stating that:

Heather Hinckley of Progressive Insurance has responded that the Connecticut Insurance Department does not allow diminished value coverage to be sold and therefore claims for diminished value cannot be made in Connecticut. In response to Ms. Hinckley’s assertion this is not correct. The Connecticut Insurance Department does not prevent claims made for diminished value and an insurer can request to include provisions of diminished value in their policy.

The CID also included a letter from a Progressive Claims Manager responding to the complaint that said:

I am writing in reply to your inquiry dated Aug. 21, 2007. I reviewed the complaint as well as the claim file and am able to provide you with the following information.

The letter sent by Heather Hinckley dated July 9, 2007, is incorrect.

Well that’s nice. Glad we got that all cleared up.

Of course, several questions remain. Has the Connecticut Insurance Department taken any action to ensure this misstatement of Connecticut law/regulation does not occur again? Has Progressive taken any action to make certain that its employees do not make this misstatement of Connecticut law/regulation again? But the one that has me really wondering is whether Heather Hinckley is still a “claims specialist” or whether she’s been knocked down to “claims representative”, “file clerk”, or “doughnut person”? After all, inquiring minds want to know.

It also bothers me that someone labeled a “claims specialist” by an insurance company can’t tell the difference between what is owed to an insured (first party) and what is owed to someone making a claim against an insured (third party). Ms. Hinckley’s comment about Progressive not offering “diminished value coverage” has nothing to do with a third party claim. The only portion of the policy any third party cares about is the section that tells the insured, “We’ll pay for anything for which you become liable up to the policy limits” (excepting, of course, intentional torts). How much of a specialist is a claims specialist who can’t tell the difference between a first party and third party claim? That’s covered in Insurance 101.

Probably, the most pertinent question is how many other people accepted the Hinckley line about diminished value not being permitted to be paid and simply went away? Well, Connecticut, your Insurance Department has spoken. Demand your diminished value. It’s really not illegal after all.