I often hear many talk about building "partnerships" with insurers to benefit vehicle owners. This assumes that a true "partnership" is being built. The accepted definition of "partnership" is, "an arrangement where parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests."
So what are the mutual interests? The goal of any business is to make a profit. This makes a partnership between these two parties suspect because to profit each of these parties must disregard and suppress the profits of the other. It was often said that the benefit of the implementation of DRPs back in the 1990s was to allow repairers to fix cars. It didn't say anything about making money doing it!
According to Wikipedia, "While partnerships stand to amplify mutual interests and success, some are considered ethically problematic. When a politician, for example, partners with a corporation to advance the corporation's interest in exchange for some benefit, a conflict of interest results. Outcomes for the public good may suffer." In our case, the interest of the vehicle owner may suffer. This is not a "betrayal" but a simple fact of this type of partnership.
I have a friend who owns a shop. He has been a technician, in the insurance industry, a consultant and now a shop owner. Less than a month ago, a customer came in to have her vehicle repaired. Progressive Insurance was handling the claim. My friend's shop was not on that program, but thought they had a good working relationship with the local adjuster and company, so didn't think much when the vehicle owner was instructed to take her vehicle the next day to another shop where the Progressive adjuster was located.
During his inspection of the vehicle he saw some temporary repairs were needed to make the vehicle safe to drive and to allow for the hood to open and close properly, which he performed, expecting that the vehicle would be back the next day for repairs. The vehicle never returned.
To his surprise when he called the vehicle owner a couple of days later, she had been steered to the shop that Progressive was stationed at. She was told, "if it were my car, I would have this shop repair it." Of course, as my friend asked the vehicle owner more about what prompted her to leave it with the other shop, she simply thought she didn't have a choice. To my friend it was as if Brutus reincarnated into the Progressive adjuster. I'm sure many of you can relate to this type of behavior from your insurer "partners."
When evidence of survey tampering by State Farm in Florida surfaced recently, one of my longest running concerns about the validity and accuracy of this first manual and now online survey reignited. This completely proprietary and unaudited by any third party survey again stepped up a few more notches on my "concern scale." Is this why shops that perform quality workmanship, have high customer satisfaction, and are certified by vehicle manufacturers are among the lowest scoring participants on the new Repairer Performance Management tool that is being used? Why is transparency not part of this "partnership?"
As many may not be surprised, the lady who owned the vehicle called my friend, the shop owner, to ask if she had to pick up the vehicle from the other shop if she was unhappy with the repairs. Of course she doesn't and now Progressive and the shop have not fulfilled the customer's expectations.
You may think that justice is being served and customers will soon wise up, but with the billions of dollars being spent by insurers to convince the public that they are "on their side," a sucker is born every minute.
As an industry we are faced with the challenges of what the business climate has become. But we must never forget that what was thought to be a great partnership is not based on the willingness of both parties to be open and honestly committed to the concerns of the other, and focused on the vehicle owner's needs. It is not a partnership.
Contact info: [email protected]
