Insurance

Prior good reputation for not reimbursing operation might be irrelevant if vehicle tech changes

General Motors has obliged both collision repair and car insurance industry by refining its assistance with which collision circumstances trigger certain inspections.

It has provided more clarity how the inspections could be conducted and declared that certain operations officially weren’t necessary in certain minor damage situations.

Nevertheless, there’s still the prospect that the insurer would still refuse to reimburse the claimant for the labor GM says remains necessary on their own vehicle.

Asked relating to this scenario throughout a VeriFacts Guild 21 session Thursday, GM wholesale dealer channel collision manager John Eck made an essential point for repairers, insurers and consumers to consider.

Eck said as an automaker, it was hard for GM to go into the middle of a transaction between an insurer and shop. That wasn’t its role, he said.

But Eck also noted he would say, “Simply because you’ve tried it previously, doesn’t imply that that’s the way it should still work.”

A 1980 Buick Skylark would be a completely different vehicle than the usual present-day model, Eck said. One couldn’t compare the technology related to exactly what a vehicle was likely to do Two decades ago using the present day.

“They’re simply not the same vehicle,” he explained.

The argument that “‘We’ve never paid for it within the past’ doesn’t really apply,” based on Eck. The issue becomes “‘What should we do now'” given one’s knowledge, the vehicle’s materials and also the expectations for that model’s performance, he explained. Regarding the latter, he pointed out that expectations exists for the way the vehicle interacts with individuals who aren’t even within it.

He said he’d say, “‘We need to possess a conversation,'” for present-day vehicles aren’t like those of 2 or 3 decades ago.

Past history of neglecting to reimburse work couldn’t be relevant to another vehicle. “It just doesn’t stick,” Eck said.

He proposed an example in the residential construction issue. Someone receives a new, unexpected line item on a bill. The builder reports it’s associated with complying to a new regulation.

“I gotta pay it,” Eck said.

Vehicle tech, expectation changes

The insurance industry’s evolving safety benchmarks for vehicles demonstrate this idea and illustrate the fallacy of drawing upon certain past experience when considering modern collision repairs. This misconception may not be restricted to insurers and consumers — even body shops can succumb into it.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety didn’t launch frontal crash-tests until 1995. NHTSA full-frontal crash testing predated that by two decades, however the IIHS centered on offset crashes instead and found the car industry lacking.

“Whenever we began our moderate overlap frontal tests, nearly all vehicles were rated poor or marginal,” the IIHS writes. “Today, all vehicles earn good ratings. Occupant compartments tend to be stronger compared to what they used to be. They hold up in a crash and permit safety belts and airbags to complete their jobs.”

The IIHS didn’t start side crash testing until 2003. The IIHS observed that while NHTSA was already testing vehicle sides, its barrier dated to the 1980s and focused on small vehicles of times. The feds didn’t account for SUVs and trucks becoming so popular, and the NHTSA test overlooked the possibility of head injuries, particularly to shorter drivers like women.

So the IIHS built its very own test, and it’s looking at revising it again as soon as 2022.

In 1995, the IIHS found 82 percent of head restraints were poor, forcing OEMs to improve. This year — just 11 years ago — the federal government issued a brand new head restraint height and backset standard which the IIHS should guarantee virtually every seat would receive a “good” IIHS geometry rating. By 2011, all seats had good or acceptable scores.

In 2012 — just one decade ago — the IIHS introduced driver-side small-overlap crash tests. “This crash test is a challenge for many safety belt and airbag designs because occupants move both forward and toward the side from the vehicle,” the IIHS wrote. …

“Manufacturers have taken care of immediately the driver-side small overlap test by improving vehicle structures and airbags, and many vehicles now earn good ratings.” By 2021, nothing more than good small-overlap protection would suffice to earn a high Safety Pick+ rating.

In 2021, the IIHS first began to rate advanced driver assistance system front crash protection systems. By 2021, an automobile could only receive Top Safety Pick+ on builds or trims with this ADAS.

In 2021, it started rating vehicles around the passenger side after finding some OEMs didn't extend the driver-side engineering there. In 2021, a great passenger-side rating became required to achieve Top Safety Pick+.

And in 2021, the IIHS began to study vehicle-to pedestrian crash prevention technology. By 2021, advanced- or superior-rated vehicle-to-pedestrian safety tech required to exist a minimum of as an option on the vehicle for that model to get Top Safety Pick+.

To see a number of this in action, here’s a 2021 GMC Acadia, which the IIHS says is similar for physical crash testing purposes to GM’s 2021 Cadillac XT6. The XT6 was the first of GM’s 2021 lineup to attain Top Safety Pick+.

More OEM, insurer perspective

Eck known as the topic of insurers refusing to reimburse OEM procedures a “touchy issue” for an automaker, for this wasn’t the main one paying the bill. The insurer paid the bill as the repairer performed the work, he said. It was a hardship on GM to get in the middle of that transaction.

Eck asserted his OEM’s role involved providing all content and knowledge to a shop to say, “‘This is exactly what I have to do'” for a proper repair.

“He should get paid for that work that is essential for that to happen,” Eck said.

The repairer didn’t wish to be liable for the vehicle’s safety, and “we don’t want them to become,” Eck said. “And that’s why we give the direction we all do.”

Eck said he hoped insurers would consider GM had sought to lessen confusion and frustration coupled with provided a inspection and replacement framework balancing reasonableness keeping the vehicle safe.

Many people would conclude the operations were reasonable and also the shop deserved payment for them, Eck suggested.

Moderator George Avery, a retired State Farm veteran who fielded audience questions, had place the inquiry to Eck. By doing this, Avery observed that the volume of claims adjusters and estimators handle enables them to learn through “sheer repetition” that a particular item isn’t covered within the policy.

“Whenever you deny something, that doesn’t mean they’re wrong,” Avery.

“However, I actually do understand how people get in a rut. … You simply get so used to saying no thanks.”

Fortunately for body shops and consumers — who might otherwise will need to go out-of-pocket to satisfy the shop’s bill — the nation’s largest insurers have been shown to reimburse safety inspections.

“Who Will pay for What?” data collected by CRASH Network and Collision Advice in summer 2021 shows eight Top 10 insurers, including No. 1 State Farm, consistently reimbursing seat belt checks, for example. Collectively, the carriers reimbursed bills for seat belt inspections “the majority of the time” or “always” 40 percent of the time when shops charged for the work.

General Motors requires a seven-step seatbelt inspection process after every collision, no matter severity.

The next VeriFacts Guild 21 call will occur at 2 p.m. July 8.