You are misinformed. Read my post above. Betterment do not speak to the “value of the vehicle”. Wear parts need to be replaced and their is a cost to replace them. If your cost to replace those wear parts is reduced or eliminated due to replacement with a new part you have benefited financially .hightech wrote: ↑ Have you taken your vehicle in for service recently and had a maintenance service performed where they examined various parts (i.e. control arms, suspension, etc.)? If the maintenance report showed everything to be in good condition, then the betterment charge would not be warranted. If the part was in a poor condition, the dealership would have advised you of the concern and then you would either replace it or keep it as is.
Keep in mind is that a Betterment is generally more than just a replacement. It is something that enhances the value of the total asset to be more then just a part replacement. If you have a 10 year old car, with a new control arm, the rest of the car is still 10 years old. No buyer in their right mind would go "hmmm, car is 10 years old but this part is new, so I pay $x more". I don't think this would stand a challenge in court and I would bet $$ on it that before it even gets to court, they would waive the costs.
I would go public with this info. The more bad publicity they get about it, the more likely they would be to cave on the item. Having worked in this industry, the Insurance people are actually measured on how much revenue they bring in and bonuses are awarded accordingly. Essentially, they are no different then the service advisers at a dealership.
The right to charge betterment is outlined in the policy which you sign and accept when you buy it.
You are also misspeaking regarding “insurance people” being compensated based on revenue brought in as having any impact on betterment decisions.
Adjusters work to the policy. Appraisers write estimates based on the appraisal guidelines. Here are 0 bonuses for settling a claim for less than the policy entities you to. That would go against the insurance act in basically every province.