fbpx

John Yoswick

John YoswickJohn Yoswick is a freelance automotive writer based in Portland, Oregon, who has been writing about the collision industry since 1988. He is the editor of the weekly CRASH Network (for a free 4-week trial subscription, visit www.CrashNetwork.com).


He can be contacted at john@crashnetwork.com 

Monday, 21 March 2016 23:52

Retro News: April 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011

Written by

Index

15 years ago in the collision repair industry (April 2001)
A call to define some total loss vehicles as ‘unrepairable’ was among the resolutions passed at the National Industry Issues Forum held recently in Minneapolis, Minn.

The event, sponsored by the Society of Collision Repair Specialists, was designed to give collision repairers an opportunity to discuss issues “without outside interference or fear of retribution” from other segments of the industry that participate in most other industry events and discussion.

Shop owners and representatives of SCRS state affiliate associations attending the event voiced support for three “resolutions” created during the meeting.

Attendees unanimously voiced support, for example, for efforts to declare total loss vehicles “unrepairable” and salable only to dismantlers if they are less than 8 years old and have damage exceeding 100 percent of their value.

Auto recycler Herb Lieberman said his industry has introduced such legislation nationally but the bills have never moved out of legislative committees.

“Of the vehicles declared total losses and removed from repair facilities to salvage pools and sold as total loss vehicles, our industry is only purchasing 30 percent of those vehicles, and that has an adverse effect on all of us,” Lieberman said.

He and others at the meeting pointed out that the current situation results in higher prices and lower availability and quality of salvage parts; surgical stripping of vehicles, VIN swapping and other fraud; insurers re-insuring poorly-rebuilt total purchased by unsuspecting consumers; and high salvage values that result in more vehicles being totaled.

National Industry Issues Forum attendees also urged insurers to consider how the accuracy and completeness of initial estimates impact cycle time and overall shop and claims costs.

“We have some insurers that ask us not to write a complete estimate,” said Boyd Dingman, owner of Dingman’s Collision Center in Omaha, NE. “They say, ‘Let’s not put blend time on there,’ or ‘Let’s not put R & I trim on there.’ Then they want cycle time. The car comes in and we don’t have blend time or the R & I time on the sheet. All of a sudden we went from the 15-hour job to a 25-hour job. That certainly slows our cycle time down because we didn’t schedule for 25 hours. They’re hurting our cycle time by asking us to write a short-sighted estimate.”

– As reported in The Golden Eagle. Little has changed in terms of total loss vehicles in the 15 years since the Forum was held, but shops and insurers have for the most part come to realize the value of “blueprinting,” fully documenting all vehicle damage up front to reduce delays and expense created by the supplement process. Dingman continues to operate four shops in Nebraska. Lieberman is an industry liaison for LKQ Corporation.

 

Mike Anderson 1966, Incomplete Estimates, Feather Prime & Block, PartsTrader

In 2001, Nebraska shop owner Boyd Dingman said incomplete initial estimates impact cycle time and overall costs for shops and insurers, essentially advocating for the process known today as “blueprinting.” Dingman’s family now operates four shops.