|
Page 3 of 3
Who is enforcing the laws?
One has to wonder why state's DOIs don't come down on insurer advertisements that, at the very least, border on being "untrue, deceptive or misleading." Being "in good hands" and being "a good neighbor" is one thing. But insurers advertising such claims as "we put you back where you belong" is, in my opinion, a statement aimed at creating a false sense of security for those who purchase policies… a promise that is, at best, seldom attainable.
In the collision industry we all know there is no such thing as "pre-loss condition" or "pre-accident condition," and smart repairers have struck such phrases from their vocabulary and paperwork, lest they be assessed for "inherent diminished value" or more. Yet insurers' bold advertisements include classic cars leaping backward out of salt water up to the top of a cliff to where the proud owner is having his picture taken. Do ads that commonly state things like "when you're with XYZ Insurance, the damage is totally reversible" hold true when a family has lost everything they own in a fire or other disaster? The impression given is that the insurer will return everything exactly as it was, but in reality this is impossible.
Can any insurer totally reverse the ravages of destroyed family pictures, mementos collected over a lifetime, or bring back the lives of persons, pets or livestock lost in fire or accident? So why haven't state DOIs caused that insurer advertising be truthful and honestly represented? We know how insurers, generally speaking, chisel shops for bottom dollar in collision repair. Is it logical to assume they treat other areas of making the consumer "whole" differently? Why haven't state DOIs required insurers to tune their advertising to the reality of the business of insurance? Wouldn't non-delivery of a service be considered in violation of the above statute? It certainly has been considered so on the part of collision repairers.
I've been told that most if not all states already have at least the skeletons of laws sufficient to protect the collision industry and consumers. It would seem to be much more sensible to work toward having weak state laws amended to put teeth in them. Where there is need for a law that doesn't currently exist, work for that new legislation, and then guard it with your life against insurer influence to amend it. Simply drawing more lines in the sand is certainly not getting the job done.
Dick Strom, Modern Collision Rebuild, 9270 Miller Road, NE, Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110; (206) 842-3621; e- mail:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >> |