PCTG Consumer Complaint Report Record ID#: 1315690366

PAYMENT DENIED FOR NECESSARY INVOICED ITEMS NECESSARY TO REPAIR VEHICLE.'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' July 22, 2008 Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania Insurance Department Bureau of Consumer Services 1209 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pa. 17120 Re: 2nd Consumer Complaint against State Farm Insurance Company Claim #38-l486-39702. Dear James John, Please be advised this is the second complaint filed against State Farm Insurance Company on the same loss. It is significant to point out that this claim is a third party claim where the insured is covered by a State Farm policy / contract and the liable party is also a State Farm policy holder. Although our customer is a State Farm policy holder he has filed this claim through the at fault party's policy coverage. State Farm Insurance Company by telephone conversation agreed to reimburse our facility an additional 2.0 hours to repair the door damage that is the disputed labor item in the previous complaint from July 11, 2008. They requested if we would allow their appraiser Mr. Chip Conover to inspect the additional items not identified in their original appraisal by appraiser Mr. George Moore. We agreed they could inspect the damages and agreed to the day of July 21st. On this day Mr. Chip Conover signed in at our facility on July 21, @ 10:50 AM. We inspected the additional items together. Although, we were in disagreement with the State Farm estimating guidelines we permitted Mr. Conover to continue with his appraisal as a prior agreement with our customer. Mr. Conover and I participated in a conversation that dealt with the high cost of paint materials and allied products needed to repair this and other vehicles. This particular vehicle is finished in a 2 stage Chrysler Candy Red metallic color. I advised Mr. Conover that State Farm's $20.00 per paint hour (DPPH) method of reimbursing our consumer for refinishing and repair products would not cover the expense needed to paint the vehicle if it was finished in white. Candy Red metallic would be another 20% higher than due to reds being a more expensive color. Mr. Conover requested to see our invoices for the products, which I handed to him for review. Conover then asked if we could show him how we arrived at our invoiced items. I escorted Mr. Conover to our paint room where he was shown our tracking procedures and the process of calculating our usage. Mr. Conover asked many questions and seemed to understand our method of digital tracking our cost through computerized invoicing. Mr. Conover agreed that our refinishing product cost would be inline with other petroleum product increases and asked why other body shops do not track usage the way we do. He also advised we should go on-line at the State Farm web site and request an increased rate adjustment for refinishing materials & allied products. After our discussion Mr. Conover went out to his van and prepared his supplemental appraisal. Mr. Conover spent a great deal of time on his telephone while preparing his report. When Mr. Conover returned to our front office he offered to review his supplemental with me, which did not cover our paint material or our allied products needed. Mr. Conover's supplemental denied actual reimbursement for our documented and invoiced material usage. Mr. Conover's supplemental identified a $20.00 DPPH reimbursement which as he stated is all State Farm will pay. I asked Mr. Conover where is our reimbursement for our invoiced materials usage? Again Mr. Conover stated his could not pay for our invoiced items. I also asked Mr. Conover where the additional 2.0 hrs are identified on his appraisal however he acted as though he knew nothing of the additional hours agreed upon by State Farm to repair the door. Mr. Conover's appraisal did not reflect an increased labor procedure for the door repairs.' Mr. Conover handed me our invoices and signed out at our facility at 12:16PM.' It is my opinion, that even though Mr. Conover felt our invoice for refinish materials and allied products was fair and reasonable he was advised by his manager not to reimburse our facility for the necessary products. For this reason, Mr. Conover's insistence to follow State Farm's estimating guidelines rather than prepare an unbiased and independent appraisal as per the MVPDA (appraiser law) is unlawful and non-compliant. We recommend the DOI contact Mr. Conover and investigate our allegations as to why he is not following state guidelines and regulations by reimbursing the actual cost of repairs.'' Please investigate our complaint and file the necessary actions against State Farm Insurance Company, their managers and staff. Sincerely, Stephen E. Behrndt, President