When a pickup slammed into Beth Dailey’s 2006 Mercedes last summer, her insurer readily agreed to pay for the repairs. But there was a catch: Her insurer would pay only for a used door, salvaged from another car, to replace the one that was smashed.
The salvaged door was installed but the car was never quite the same, Dailey said. The door rattled. It didn’t line up properly. Finally, when the car needed mechanical repairs, Dailey threw in the towel and traded it in for a newer model.
Comments
This is news? This argument has been goofing on for decades. While I agree I would not want structural or electronic parts from salvage, there is no reason a used door or hood from the make, model and year two not fit as well and last as long as a new one, provided it is properly painted and installed.
Many complaints about salvaged parts are more about the installer than the part. I have seen shoddy repairs with licensed new parts and great repairs with salvaged parts.
Darn! You scooped my post! You are spot on. The lady with the '06 Benz in the story likely had a shoddy repair job since the stampings are nearly identical and there's never an excuse for a continued rattle. Once maybe but not after being identified. When I was in my 20's I worked for a couple GM dealers in the parts dept. I'd deliver stuff to the garages & body shops. The imported sheet metal parts those guys were using was garbage. I can't imagine it's much better these days.
Another example of the Globe's elitist attitude. You use a case involving a Mercedes to illustrate your point? How many readers are going to sympathize wth Beth for buying a newer model? The Globe's writing pushes people to read more populist papers!
Sarcasm, right?
Used parts are a potential value killer in a repair. My father-in-law's Taurus had an insurance company sanctioned used door installed which must have lived its earlier life in New Hampshire, or taken a dip in the ocean. A year or two after the repair that door began to rust out at the bottom seam. The rest of the car's doors remained pristine for a decade. Buyer beware!!!
It's an outrage; so who pays for the lawsuit when someone is hurt due to the mandated repair and materials? And when do we get a discount on our premiums for the use of non-new parts.
The issue goes both ways. On the one hand the insurance company is just trying to spend as little as possible and doesn't care if corners are cut. On the other, auto manufacturers charge an outrageous premium for their parts. I think it was Consumer Reports some years ago that found that if you ordered all the parts to build a $10,000 (at the time) car and built it yourself it would cost you over $100,000. Like someone else said, I think the key is to find an body shop and repair shop that you can trust and I find they will discuss with you the pros and cons of using manufacturers parts, aftermarket parts and such, and the whether the difference in costs is worth it. My body shop guy has told me in some instances a rebuilt part is fine and in others said it wasn't and fought the insurance company for me to get the factory part.
Is this the same Liberty Mutual that advertises how "responsible" they are? If they spent less on ads they could afford to give customers new parts
A few years ago, I asked a CPA friend about a new insurance company for our car coverage. He mentioned how Aetna and Liberty Mutual were real "bargains" at one time before the companies began heavy advertising and junk mail campaigns. My friend said, "the advertising money has to come from somewhere, so they raise their rates and cut back on what they pay for claims." So, I found a company that hardly ever advertises! Bingo, Boston Globe! Great story.
They don't call them Slippery Mutual for nothin'.
Insurance companies have too much power in too many areas. It's time to rein them back in. They work for the consumer not the other way around.