I read with great interest Russell Thrall's editorial "Inherent DV-Inherently Stupid" (ABRN, February 2002, Comment). I read Russell's editorial every month, and I admire him for writing what he feels is important to the future of the collision industry and the shops in this industry. We may not like the message, but we should always consider the opinion of anyone willing to look into the issues that will effect us now and in the future.
Everyone has an opinion, and I'm glad our industry allows different opinions to be published. I am amazed that others in this industry would attack Russell's opinion because he states an opinion that is different from theirs, but I'm not surprised.
I try not to take any side on the diminished value (DV) issue, and while I may agree with some forms of DV, I do not agree with the idea of inherent DV. I don't think that any vehicle that has been repaired properly is worth less. In fact, I drive a vehicle that is worth far more because I repaired it and improved it from its pre-accident condition. The car is a 1987 Mercedes 420SEL, and it is now black and lovely, and my personal vehicle. Before the car was wrecked, it was worth about $10,000 maximum. We increased the value of the vehicle, and my family rides in it.
I have refused an offer of $15,000 for the car, and I plan on keeping it a long time. My house is not diminished from the work we have done on it throughout the years. It has only appreciated because of the repairs. I think only the sale price will determine value, and my car and house are not for sale.
Anyone who knows me is aware that I spoke out for many years against aftermarket sheet metal. In my opinion, it devalues a customer's vehicle. I understand and agree that those in most cases diminished the value of the vehicles they were used on and it ended up costing the insurance industry for their part on that issue. In part because of that case, most insurance companies are now paying for procedures and parts that they may not have in years past. In that respect, DV helped bring about some good for shops and consumers alike. I also agree that poor repairs cause DV, and every shop has to pay attention to quality to avoid doing anything that will devalue a vehicle. Looking at it this way, DV has in fact helped improve this industry and hopefully the quality of every job. Inherent DV is where I don't agree or think it is good for this industry.
Russell pointed out that many feel that lawsuits punished the insurance industry for years of inadequate reimbursements for repairs, and that may be true in many cases. I would state my opinion that anyone in this industry that thinks that lawsuits and lawyers will help the shops long term will be sadly disappointed in the future. In fact, I see less vehicles to be repaired now, and more will total in the future because it will be cheaper and more economical for the insurance industry to just total them rather than continue to be sued and pay diminished value, etc. It could put a lot of shops out of business and it will thin out the number of shops, especially those with heavy debt and in areas with a large base of other competitors. I will try to repair newer vehicles with less damage, get them in and out quicker, and maybe that will benefit us, but I doubt it.
I expect the insurance industry to write new policies and write out DV where possible, and I expect most consumers will opt for whatever costs them less. The other option is that the insurance industry can just stop writing coverage, just like some are doing now in Texas on homeowner's coverage due to mold claims and things like a jury awarding some $32 million on one claim on one house. Insurance is not the lottery, but in some places it seems that is how some people think. I don't.
If there are fewer vehicles to repair and insurance companies add additional costs of DV and many other factors into premiums, then a lot of people in the collision industry will not be fixing anything. I don't want to re-inspect the work of other shops or be in the "re-repair" business, and I do not have any financial interest in DV. I am very concerned about keeping my employees working and have work for them to do. My bread and butter is in repairing cars and trucks to the best of our ability, not suing people or arguing issues. I think Russell wrote an editorial that may create uneasiness for many repairers, but I think what he wrote is coming true now and will continue to happen. I don't see DV putting a dime in my pocket or helping my business in any way other than what I have stated above. I respect the views of those who may not agree with me, that is their right.
Thank you for allowing me to state my opinion.
About the Author
