Roger M. Guttentag
At 11:27 AM 10/07/1999 -0500, David Wood wrote:
>As I understand the judgment in this case (which will be appealed by State
>Farm, likely to reduce the award but not the ruling), the issue was
>disclosure in their policies. The terms of their policies did not
>contradict the use of remanufactured parts but would lead a reasonable
>policy-holder to think their car was being repaired with new parts.
>Insurance companies have a financial incentive to contract for the use of
>remanufactured parts; I don't think this case will undercut that. The
>companies need to be clearer in their policies and disclosures to consumers.
>Your point is a good one.
>At 12:06 PM 10/07/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>>I'm wondering if anyone knows details about the lawsuit in Illinois where a
>>jury just ruled that State Farm breached its contract with auto policy
>>holders by requiring body shops to use lower-priced generic body parts for
>>crash repairs, rather than those made by the auto manufacturers. The article
>>in my newspaper only mentions parts like hoods and bumpers, but I'm
>>that this might throw a shadow over remanufactured parts like carburetors,
>>engines and other machinery, which would set back reuse efforts.