Nothing better about betterment

In reply to ddavidv :

Who might that be, in case I might be looking? Haha

jfryjfry said:

My wife’s van got hit on the front bumper  by an uninsured, unlicensed driver.  Our insurance will cover it 100%  

The bumper cover needed to be replaced because one of the mounting tabs was torn off. 

I then get a call that i get to pay a part of the bumper replacement because there was preexisting damage (a small scuff on the bottom of the opposite side) because of “betterment” - the bumper will be in better shape than it was before

I knew I was wasting my breath but still told them to just replace the part of the bumper that was hit (we can’t do this.  I know you can’t.) or to replace, repaint and then scratch the new bumper so it matches the old damage (won’t do this. Good;  because that would be messed up) 

in the end, the cost wasn’t nearly as much as I feared (I’m sure it would have been a $500 - $1000 estimate if I had just walked in and asked to repair the scuff and it ended up being $80) but the principle really bothered me. 

The gal at the shop said that every insurance company is doing it and there is nothing to be done about it.  

oh well.  First world problems!

This smells like a class action lawsuit in the making.  They're screwing customers who won't bother fighting the "betterment" adjustment because it often won't be enough dollars for you to take anywhere except maybe bitching on the internet on a forum.  

So let's start with the basics.  You carry insurance.  The part was damaged, and needed to be replaced.  There was no additional work pertaining to pre-existing damage that wasn't 100% required to be done already for the repair at hand.  They charged you additional money for the work that needed to be done for the covered repair. 

There are over 260 million registered vehicles in the USA, who get in more than 5 million accidents per year.  It's not that hard to see how this screw job adds up to real money fast in aggregate for the insurers.  That similarly equals a big pool of ill earned profits to a team of lawyers to represent for policyholders who got screwed $50-$200 at a time.  

xflowgolf said:

jfryjfry said:

My wife’s van got hit on the front bumper  by an uninsured, unlicensed driver.  Our insurance will cover it 100%  

The bumper cover needed to be replaced because one of the mounting tabs was torn off. 

I then get a call that i get to pay a part of the bumper replacement because there was preexisting damage (a small scuff on the bottom of the opposite side) because of “betterment” - the bumper will be in better shape than it was before

I knew I was wasting my breath but still told them to just replace the part of the bumper that was hit (we can’t do this.  I know you can’t.) or to replace, repaint and then scratch the new bumper so it matches the old damage (won’t do this. Good;  because that would be messed up) 

in the end, the cost wasn’t nearly as much as I feared (I’m sure it would have been a $500 - $1000 estimate if I had just walked in and asked to repair the scuff and it ended up being $80) but the principle really bothered me. 

The gal at the shop said that every insurance company is doing it and there is nothing to be done about it.  

oh well.  First world problems!

This smells like a class action lawsuit in the making.  They're screwing customers who won't bother fighting the "betterment" adjustment because it often won't be enough dollars for you to take anywhere except maybe bitching on the internet on a forum.  

So let's start with the basics.  You carry insurance.  The part was damaged, and needed to be replaced.  There was no additional work pertaining to pre-existing damage that wasn't 100% required to be done already for the repair at hand.  They charged you additional money for the work that needed to be done for the covered repair. 

There are over 260 million registered vehicles in the USA, who get in more than 5 million accidents per year.  It's not that hard to see how this screw job adds up to real money fast in aggregate for the insurers.  That similarly equals a big pool of ill earned profits to a team of lawyers to represent for policyholders who got screwed $50-$200 at a time.  

No.

ddavidv has some very good points which I totally agree with.  Betterment is subjective and how it's applied can vary.  If we use LKQ parts, we don't take betterment.  We don't take betterment on tires...even though we could...unless it's pretty clearly well on it's way to being bald.  If a part has prior damage on it, then yeah, betterment may be taken.  It's a judgment call, and business decisions are often made (in favor of the customer). 

Betterment has been challenged in court, many times.  The concept of it is consistently upheld.  How it's applied, as previously discussed, is subjective and more a matter for the DOI than the courts. 

Klayfish said:

xflowgolf said:

jfryjfry said:

My wife’s van got hit on the front bumper  by an uninsured, unlicensed driver.  Our insurance will cover it 100%  

The bumper cover needed to be replaced because one of the mounting tabs was torn off. 

I then get a call that i get to pay a part of the bumper replacement because there was preexisting damage (a small scuff on the bottom of the opposite side) because of “betterment” - the bumper will be in better shape than it was before

I knew I was wasting my breath but still told them to just replace the part of the bumper that was hit (we can’t do this.  I know you can’t.) or to replace, repaint and then scratch the new bumper so it matches the old damage (won’t do this. Good;  because that would be messed up) 

in the end, the cost wasn’t nearly as much as I feared (I’m sure it would have been a $500 - $1000 estimate if I had just walked in and asked to repair the scuff and it ended up being $80) but the principle really bothered me. 

The gal at the shop said that every insurance company is doing it and there is nothing to be done about it.  

oh well.  First world problems!

This smells like a class action lawsuit in the making.  They're screwing customers who won't bother fighting the "betterment" adjustment because it often won't be enough dollars for you to take anywhere except maybe bitching on the internet on a forum.  

So let's start with the basics.  You carry insurance.  The part was damaged, and needed to be replaced.  There was no additional work pertaining to pre-existing damage that wasn't 100% required to be done already for the repair at hand.  They charged you additional money for the work that needed to be done for the covered repair. 

There are over 260 million registered vehicles in the USA, who get in more than 5 million accidents per year.  It's not that hard to see how this screw job adds up to real money fast in aggregate for the insurers.  That similarly equals a big pool of ill earned profits to a team of lawyers to represent for policyholders who got screwed $50-$200 at a time.  

No.

ddavidv has some very good points which I totally agree with.  Betterment is subjective and how it's applied can vary.  If we use LKQ parts, we don't take betterment.  We don't take betterment on tires...even though we could...unless it's pretty clearly well on it's way to being bald.  If a part has prior damage on it, then yeah, betterment may be taken.  It's a judgment call, and business decisions are often made (in favor of the customer). 

Betterment has been challenged in court, many times.  The concept of it is consistently upheld.  How it's applied, as previously discussed, is subjective and more a matter for the DOI than the courts. 

I'm not talking about any of those things.  Not LKQ parts, not tires... parts and repairs that are 100% within the scope of work already being performed under a covered repair with zero additional work required or materials to complete the covered repair.  

That's a screw job any way you slice it if a customer is being charged additionally for any of that work.  

If it truly was fair, then the opt out of betterment should be allowed, as he tried to do.  Don't fix that side?  ....what? not possible because it's part of the repair?  There's no way to slice that up as an ethical responsibility of the consumer.  That should not be "subjective in how it's applied".  It should continue to be challenged in courts, given that it clearly is one way in it currently IS being applied, and it's in a manner which is screwing the OP.  

Yes, I understand what you're saying.   Let me give you a more extreme, but same concept as OP here, example.  If your quarter panel was rusted all around the wheel well and had a dent the size of a basketball in it before it got hit, do you think insurance should pay to put a brand new rust and dent free one on?  It needed to be replaced before the accident anyway.

If you think it's a "screw job" that insurance doesn't pay to repair/replace a previously damaged/destroyed part with a brand new one that's your opinion.  Don't agree, and it's not how it works. 

The subjectivity, as ddavidv and I have mentioned, comes to the benefit of the consumer.  There are many times where the carrier and/or adjuster will decide to NOT take it or to take less than they rightfully could.  Some carriers have a policy not to do it at all, simply as a marketing and customer service measure.  I take a very lenient stance myself.  Don't think too many people would want to challenge ddavidv or myself and say we should take more.  Some carriers are more strict with it.  They're legally right to do so, it can just come across as heavy handed, which is a business decision they have to make.   

In reply to Klayfish :

Your example does not match the OP's example. His bumper cover had a paint scrape on the opposite side. The accident tore the mounting tabs off of the bumper cover. The entire cover has to be replaced and painted. The new bumper cover does NOT have a scrape in it. The OP is being charged $80 as if the scrape was being bodyworked out. The OP then said fine, don't better my car and repair my cover, which the insurer declined to do. That is a screw job.

Additionally, the OP's vehicle is now worth less as it has an accident on it's record versus not having one before. 

In reply to Javelin :

Not going to keep beating my head against a wall here, just giving an insiders' perspective on how it works.  But briefly, here's the qoute about it from OP:

I then get a call that i get to pay a part of the bumper replacement because there was preexisting damage (a small scuff on the bottom of the opposite side) because of “betterment” - the bumper will be in better shape than it was before

I knew I was wasting my breath but still told them to just replace the part of the bumper that was hit (we can’t do this.  I know you can’t.) or to replace, repaint and then scratch the new bumper so it matches the old damage (won’t do this. Good;  because that would be messed up) 

So the bumper cover had a scuff (we don't know how bad) on it prior to the loss.  As noted, a bumper can't be sectioned (well, it could, but you wouldn't want to).  No insurance company is going to write an estimate that says "scratch the new bumper up the way it was".  So the way it's handled is to write for the repair and subtract the value of the prior damage that was on it.  HOW the repair is actually carried out is between the owner and the shop, the insurance is only writing the check. 

Auto insurance is just like a Casino. The house always wins in the long run. All insurance actually. They gradually change your policy the longer your with them. Then when you need it walla oh you don't have that coverage since the previous policy change.

Is it a scam sure it is. It has been since the beginning. They figure out ways not to pay to keep the money in their pocket. Just like this betterment BS and yes it is BS no mater how you slice it.

The lucky ones are the people that never have to use it. All be it in a screwed up manner of paying tens of thousands of dollars over a life time of driving.

Most of the stupid little accidents are what keep most shade tree body shops going. Just fix the car for less than the deductible and away you go. Hell the OP probably could have found a cover in the same color for less then $80 and spent 1/2 hr installing it. 

Oh yea wife used to work in the insurance industry so yea to many horror stories about customers getting screwed over to really be sympathetic to any industry standard BS, as they get made up daily to fit their agenda.

brad131a4 said:

Auto insurance is just like a Casino. The house always wins in the long run. All insurance actually. [..]

Is it a scam sure it is. It has been since the beginning. 

Of course the house wins in the long run - that's exactly what insurance is. To simplify it maybe a bit too far, if you do not pay out more in premiums compared to claims over a lifetime of paying into insurance, then the insurance company is losing money and should never have insured you. That's how insurance works, and that's how it's supposed to work. Otherwise NOBODY would offer insurance. News flash: they're offering you insurance to make money. That doesn't make it a scam. That makes them a for-profit company.

On the other end of the spectrum, when my son's 275k mile Corolla with scuffs and peeling clearcoat was rear-ended the estimate to repair/replace the bumper cover (the only damage) was $650. He took the check. I started to pull the bumper cover off to do a full repair, but saw how rough the whole car was to begin with. I ended up taping the back side of a crack with Gorilla Tape and buffing out some paint transfer.  Total cost to repair, about 30 minutes and 18" of tape. A couple weeks later we sold the car for the same $ it would have sold for before the accident.

I suppose if a bank owns your car you have fewer options.

I definitely wanted to just take the check and fix it myself but swmbo said I have too many projects and wanted it looking nice so I didn’t want to convince her to let me get a used part, knowing that the chances of finding one with no scratches or scuffs was slim to none. 

But the real reason was the initial assessment just had $100 of repair to the existing bumper, even though i tore it down in front of him for the first time and showed him where the mount was torn.  Insurance wouldn’t change it until a shop told them it needed to be replaced so the amount I would have got would have been pretty small   So, in order for them to pay for a cover it had to go to the shop.  I didn’t want to send to a shop, have it tore apart, get authorized, put it back together and go get it so that I could then track down a bumper and do it myself  

Also, the scuff on the other side was not big. It was $80 small. Which is shocking that that was all that they charged me but shows how insignificant it was.  And how petty it was that they would charge me at all. 

I completely understand that they are within their rights to do what they did but it definitely leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to charge me for work that never happened and then to not return it to pre-crash condition (cheap aftermarket cover).

Regarding the example of the rusted and dented fender getting hit, if they can find a rusty and dented fender to replace it with, that seems fair. But if they can’t, and they have to get a new one,  so be it. 

Unless they want to lower my premium.... Because presumably I am paying for coverage on an undamaged car.  If my car were perfect and got hit, they would have paid 100%.  But they didn’t pay 100%. They paid about 96% because of prior damage. Seems reasonable that they should lower the cost of that part of the coverage. 

But again, I know legally they are in the right and I accepted the contract.  

In reply to jfryjfry :

Sounds to me like that $80 will cause them to lose a customer. It should. 

brad131a4 said:

Auto insurance is just like a Casino. The house always wins in the long run. All insurance actually. They gradually change your policy the longer your with them. Then when you need it walla oh you don't have that coverage since the previous policy change.

Is it a scam sure it is. It has been since the beginning. They figure out ways not to pay to keep the money in their pocket. Just like this betterment BS and yes it is BS no mater how you slice it.

The lucky ones are the people that never have to use it. All be it in a screwed up manner of paying tens of thousands of dollars over a life time of driving.

Most of the stupid little accidents are what keep most shade tree body shops going. Just fix the car for less than the deductible and away you go. Hell the OP probably could have found a cover in the same color for less then $80 and spent 1/2 hr installing it. 

Oh yea wife used to work in the insurance industry so yea to many horror stories about customers getting screwed over to really be sympathetic to any industry standard BS, as they get made up daily to fit their agenda.

  

No offense, but I highly question about your wife working in the insurance industry, or if she did it certainly wasn't in auto claims.  There is so much incorrect about your statement I wouldn't even know where to start.

jfryjfry said:

Also, the scuff on the other side was not big. It was $80 small. Which is shocking that that was all that they charged me but shows how insignificant it was.  And how petty it was that they would charge me at all. 

I completely understand that they are within their rights to do what they did but it definitely leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to charge me for work that never happened and then to not return it to pre-crash condition (cheap aftermarket cover).

Regarding the example of the rusted and dented fender getting hit, if they can find a rusty and dented fender to replace it with, that seems fair. But if they can’t, and they have to get a new one,  so be it. 

But again, I know legally they are in the right and I accepted the contract.  

That makes sense and I can completely understand and agree with your feelings.  I support betterment and fully believe in the right to use it, so I will never fault the insurance company for taking it.  Technically, they should.  However, as you said, it can leave a bitter taste and sometimes it's just not worth it.  I only instruct to take it when it's clearly needed...and yes that is a judgment, but a little common sense goes a long way.

Insurance can't/won't find rusted or dented parts to put back on a car, it's a can of worms nobody would want to open.

The sad part is you can't know how good your company is until you have a claim. I've worked for insurers (see previous posts) who would take betterment on exhaust pipes because they wear out. Even stainless steel ones. I disagreed with that but was forced to do it or get written up. So I just referred the angry customer up the chain of command and let them make the call. One of the myriad of reasons I no longer work for Brand X.

As an employee of my present company I'm not supposed to comment on them on social media. I can only tell you that 'umbrella coverage' has a slightly comical meaning with us. Think corporate logo.

I always laugh in disbelief when people complain about insurance companies making money from premiums. I mean, if they didn't how would they stay in business? Civilians don't understand expense ratios but we aren't making a killing off any one individual policy. Few companies make double digit returns on every dollar they take in. Typically if we charge you a dollar we may get to keep 3 to 7 cents of that after claims and expenses. The only way it works is volume. This is why so many are obsessed with controlling claim costs.

But it is easier to think all insurers are evil and a 'scam' than to try to understand basic business concepts.

In reply to ddavidv :

Yep.  At least in auto insurance, carriers don't make money hand over fist.  In fact, it's ultra cut throat.  Profits from policy premium are minimal, at best.  Profit comes from investing money.

ddavidv said:

Typically if we charge you a dollar we may get to keep 3 to 7 cents of that after claims and expenses. The only way it works is volume. This is why so many are obsessed with controlling claim costs.

I can see that. We've not discussed injury accidents where somebody may lose a limb or require a helicopter ride and serious life saving efforts. I'm sure just a few of those a year eat up a great percentage of the potential profit.

Then, if we consider something like a hurricane that might inflict flood damage on every car within hundreds of miles, that probably eats up a lot of potential profit, too.

Klayfish, You are correct she worked in the health field insurance area. Might not quite be apples to apples but same principles. Collect more than you put out. Figure out ways to make sure that you keep as much in your pocket as possible. I'm all ears on what is so wrong about what I said.  

I've had auto adjusters who flat out lied about what was damage caused by the accident and what was previous damage. So sorry if I might seem a tad bit skeptical of auto adjusters being on the up and up. Mind you I don't know how you work or how ethical you are just my experience is all.

Dculberson, Ok yes I understand that they are in it to make money. I have no problems with that at all. What I have a problem with is when they are fraudulent about your claim and start trying to back date paperwork to back out of the lie they've been caught in. That is when it becomes a scam and not a legitimate business.

I have had some good experiences with some auto insurance companies but the bad still out weighs the good. 

Just waiting to hear what the next big buzz word thingamajig they come up with to deny a claim. Someone always seems to come up with something from year to year.

Klayfish said:

If your quarter panel was rusted all around the wheel well before it got hit, do you think insurance should pay to put a brand new rust free one on?  It needed to be replaced before the accident anyway.

I'm genuinely curious what the "insurance" answer to this is. I still have full coverage on a truck that is starting to rust on the quarters. Is the coverage worth it? There are many ways to fix it, from bondo and paint, to panel replacement, so how do you determine the before value? Especially since you wouldn't see it until after an accident when it will look much worse than before.

I always assumed the premiums were to put it back to "like new" condition. Betterment is a new word for me.

JIn reply to llysgennad :

it was to me as well   I posted this originally because i wanted to vent a little bit but also to make people aware of something I’ve learned that many aren’t aware of  

In your situation, if the insurance company is going to utilize betterment, I have come to the conclusion that they should lower your rate on the part of your coverage that would apply   I don’t like betterment (making someone pay to repair preexisting damage on a part they have to replace anyway is pretty bogus) but I can give a pass if they reduce your rate based on how much damage you have   

Is your car pristine? Full rate.  Some various dings? 90% rate   Pretty banged up? 50%.      I know realistically there isn’t a good way to really implement this (maybe on age of vehicle???) but it seems reasonable   

Otherwise, it is unfair to charge full replacement rate but not do it  

Klayfish said:

In reply to Javelin :

Not going to keep beating my head against a wall here, just giving an insiders' perspective on how it works.  But briefly, here's the qoute about it from OP:

I then get a call that i get to pay a part of the bumper replacement because there was preexisting damage (a small scuff on the bottom of the opposite side) because of “betterment” - the bumper will be in better shape than it was before

I knew I was wasting my breath but still told them to just replace the part of the bumper that was hit (we can’t do this.  I know you can’t.) or to replace, repaint and then scratch the new bumper so it matches the old damage (won’t do this. Good;  because that would be messed up) 

So the bumper cover had a scuff (we don't know how bad) on it prior to the loss.  As noted, a bumper can't be sectioned (well, it could, but you wouldn't want to).  No insurance company is going to write an estimate that says "scratch the new bumper up the way it was".  So the way it's handled is to write for the repair and subtract the value of the prior damage that was on it.  HOW the repair is actually carried out is between the owner and the shop, the insurance is only writing the check. 

 

My issue is he was ok with the bumper scuff and is now forced to pay to fix it through no fault of his own. That’s wrong.

Javelin said:

dculberson said:

As long as the used OEM part is in good shape, I see no problem with them using used parts. The part coming off your car is used, why does it matter if the part going on is used? However, aftermarket parts suck and I would not be happy with that.

I would rather used parts than even new "oem". With used I know exactly what I'm getting and that it is the same as what I am replacing.

When one of my aunts got hit in her Fit, and the body shop estimate came up, I told her to take the insurance settlement of $400, which was less than her deductible.  I found a replacement door on car-part in the same color for $180.  I replaced it in her garage for free.  She could use the remaining money to have a paintless dent repair shop remove the only-noticable-if-you-know-it's-there ding in the rear door, if she cared, which she didn't.

llysgennad said:

Klayfish said:

If your quarter panel was rusted all around the wheel well before it got hit, do you think insurance should pay to put a brand new rust free one on?  It needed to be replaced before the accident anyway.

I'm genuinely curious what the "insurance" answer to this is. I still have full coverage on a truck that is starting to rust on the quarters. Is the coverage worth it? There are many ways to fix it, from bondo and paint, to panel replacement, so how do you determine the before value? Especially since you wouldn't see it until after an accident when it will look much worse than before.

I always assumed the premiums were to put it back to "like new" condition. Betterment is a new word for me.

Let's make sure we're talking apples and apples, not apples and oranges.  You're mentioning the word "premiums".  By that, are you referring to what you pay per month for your coverage?  That's the traditional sense of that term.  If so, while I have a basic understanding of that side of the house (underwriting), I'm a claims guy.  My educated guess is that it would be a near impossibility to administer a program where they charge premium partly based on vehicle condition. The vehicles' age (i.e. approximate value) and claim risk already factor into premiums.  But let's stick to claims, as that's my field of expertise. 

From a claims perspective, only you can answer if full coverage is worth it or not.  If your quarter panel got hit, it really would be up to the appraiser/adjuster to determine if betterment would apply and how much.  Again, this is where some judgment comes into play.  He/she will have to determine if they want to apply it, as different companies have different philosophies in how strict to be with it.  The way I instruct it to be handled is that if it's relatively minor, don't bother.  For example, if a tire has 6/32" tread left (assuming 9 or 10 new) then I don't even worry about it.  However, if the tire is as bald as my head, then yeah it's going to apply.  Rust would be the same.  A few bubbles, probably won't bother with it.  Swiss cheese, going to apply. 

Yes it sucks in situations where the only solution is to repair the car and you have betterment applied.  You then have to pay more than what insurance is covering...but also keep in mind that the car is then in better shape than it was before the accident.  That's where the customer service decisions have to come in.  The insurance company is fully within their rights to apply betterment, but they have to decide if they want to or not.  Or course, there are also all kinds of things that happen between the customer and the body shops that the insurance doesn't get involved in.  Not repairing at all, partial repairs, etc....

Remember that auto insurance polices are written on an Actual Cash Value "ACV" basis, not Replacement Cost Value "RCV".  In other words, what was that product worth at the moment of the loss?  Not what it costs to replace it.  Same thing happens in liability policies.  If you hire a painting company to come and stain your wood deck, but they drop equipment on it and break some wood, if the wood was old and partly rotten the insurance won't pay the cost of brand new wood.  Many homeowners policies are written on an RCV basis...you'll want to check your policy to be sure.  Even they will do what is called a "hold back".  You have a leak in your kitchen and it warps your hardwoods.  They will pay you the ACV of the hardwood (i.e. betterment applies) until you prove to them that you have actually replaced the floors, they they'll pay you the rest of the RCV.

Since the scuff could have been fixed with a comp claim prior to the accident, is the betterment limited to an amount less than the deductible? 

Along the same lines, could the OP get a repair estimate for the scuff and if the estimate was higher then his deductible submit a comp claim for the preexisting bumper damage, get paid for the repair minus deductible, and then turn around and pay off the betterment charge?

In reply to oldopelguy :

No, the betterment has nothing to do with the deductible.  An estimate is written to repair the damage from the reported loss, then any necessary betterment is taken for prior damage, wear/tear, etc....

Sure, OP could submit a separate claim for the scuff.