I have a question for shop owners that I could use some input on.
First off, I am a former paint and body man that had my own shop for a few years. My Autobody career spanned about 11 years. I had a career change, and that was about 21 years ago. So I know a little about what's going on behind closed doors.
On Mothers Day of this year my son was driving my '95 Mustang GT convertible and got rearended. The other drivers ins. company has dragged their feet up until about a week and a half ago. All repairs have been approved by them. (They were going to total my car until I explaned that they would have over $7K in aftermarket bolt ons to pay for)
Being that the car is now 16 years old, the E9 laser red metallic paint has faded badly to a strawberry red. almost pink. So naturally, I asked the shop how much to spray the entire car.
Mind you know, they are already being paid to paint the drivers door (blend area) left quarter and tail light and rear bumper and either part of the trunk lid or all of it. (very edge above tail light damaged)
Then the run around starts. "Well, we don't do all over paint jobs, and when we do, it's at least a $4K job since we have to remove this and that and stand on our heads while the paint dries......."
So I ask them to just put it in primer and I'll paint it myself. I just got the call minutes ago that they would not do this and they have to paint the entire damaged area.
Am I out of line calling BS on this?? This is a very big shop that is a production facilitiy. Honestly, I could prep this car for paint in one day. The clear coat is great, it's just the paint under the clear that is faded. I even have a NEW hood and front bumper, so no old paint to deal with there.
They offered for me to come pick the car up so I can take it elsewhere, but this is the part that really pisses me off. I have personally sent thousands of dollars of work to the shop from just my familys cars. I have sent co-workers there several times, and they too have sent friends and family there. I have sent neighbors and friends to them too. Again, they have also sent friends there too.
Why? I trust their work. I want them to do the body work. Hell, I want them to do an all over. AT AN HONEST PRICE! (Before you ask, I'm thinking an additional $2K to the price would be fare to spray a quarter, a door, 2 fenders and hood and bumper)
But I would at least be willing to just let them do the body work and I'll take it from there. But now that's not an option.
Am I out of line here? Think about it. Now I'm going to be driving a two tone car and telling everyone the name of the shop that did this to me. Would you want this on the street?

Did you try contacting the insurance company who is footing the bill for these repairs ?

Insurance company won't pay for an all over paint job because my car is old and faded.

BUT....I had to use the "insider card" since my brother sells the shop their insurance that covers their property and liability. Had a nice long discussion with the owner last night. I see why he has the SOP he has. His businesses turn on average 600 to 800 cars a month with 3 shops scattered around town. In his early days he would do bodywork and install body panels for customers without painting and told them these parts would rust with just shipping primer.
Next thing he knows, he's getting sued. So he started the policy of not allowing a car to leave the shop without being painted.
But I explaned to him that he had me between a rock and a hard spot. He does NOT want to do an all over on my car since they don't do all overs, and he is insisting on putting out a mis matched paint job on a car I'm about to paint. Thus, forcing me to pay twice to paint the same area throwing hundreds of dollars down the drain.
At the end of the conversation he agreed it would be a real waste of money for the shop to do it, and knowing my background, he would approve releasing without paint.
Besides, I wouldn't sue my brothers company he sells for!

I am not a shop owner but I did figure he had a good reason for the position he was taking. Either the insurance company wouldn't pay the claim unless he "completed it" by applying the paint or he was protecting himself and his business from lawsuits.

The more I do work for people the more I realize many are lawsuit happy and looking to get something for nothing.

Scotts GT, You asked for advice from shop owners. Well, here it is (but you're not going to like what you hear). First of all - of course the insurance company is not going to pay to paint your whole car. Why would the pay for a full car repaint when the damage they're paying for is limited to back end of the car ? Its not their fault the paint is badly faded on your car. It is the insurance companies job as well as the bodyshops job to repair the damaged area to look like new. The paint they will put on the damaged area will matched to the factory paint code of the car.

There is another way to look at this whole situation. The paint mismatch problem is YOUR problem not the problem of the body/paint shop or the insurance company. Its not the repair shops fault or problem that the paint on your car was badly faded on your car. You want to blame somebody for the problem then put the blame squarely on the person who is responsible - the person who hit your car while your son was driving it (assuming he was found at fault in the accident). But again you're not going to like what you're about to hear. The person who hit your car (assuming he was at fault) is following through on his legal responsibility to repair the damage he caused (through his insurance company). Its not his fault the paint is faded bad on your car, its not the fault of the body/paint shop that the paint is faded on your car and its not the fault of the insurance company that the paint is faded bad on your car. Its a chance you take when you decide to drive your car (or allow your son to drive your car) on public roads where an accident is a possibility. Why should you get a free full paint job and be unjustly enriched as a result of an apparently minor accident ?


Several things don't sound right here. (1) You apparently weren't worried enough about your car that you neglected to have your own full coverage insurance on your car or your insurance company would have paid to repair the damaged area. (2) it just doesn't sound right that the insurance company would not total your car based on $7,000 worth of add ons you bolted to your car. (3) why would you put $7,000 worth of add ons on a car with a really faded paint job ? wouldn't it have made more sense to spend half of that on a new paint job ?

If I were the paint shop repairing your car I would follow through on the contract that my shop has with the insurance company which is to repair and paint the damaged area with the color based on paint code tag on your car. What you do with the car after it leaves my shop would be up to you (drive it as is or pay to have the rest of the car painted, the choice would be yours to make).

Phil V wrote:Scotts GT, You asked for advice from shop owners. Well, here it is (but you're not going to like what you hear). First of all - of course the insurance company is not going to pay to paint your whole car. Why would the pay for a full car repaint when the damage they're paying for is limited to back end of the car ? Its not their fault the paint is badly faded on your car. It is the insurance companies job as well as the bodyshops job to repair the damaged area to look like new. The paint they will put on the damaged area will matched to the factory paint code of the car.
I fully understand this, and I agree with it 100% Where did I say I wanted the insurance company to pick up the bill???


There is another way to look at this whole situation. The paint mismatch problem is YOUR problem not the problem of the body/paint shop or the insurance company. Its not the repair shops fault or problem that the paint on your car was badly faded on your car. You want to blame somebody for the problem then put the blame squarely on the person who is responsible - the person who hit your car while your son was driving it (assuming he was found at fault in the accident). But again you're not going to like what you're about to hear. The person who hit your car (assuming he was at fault) is following through on his legal responsibility to repair the damage he caused (through his insurance company). Its not his fault the paint is faded bad on your car, its not the fault of the body/paint shop that the paint is faded on your car and its not the fault of the insurance company that the paint is faded bad on your car. Its a chance you take when you decide to drive your car (or allow your son to drive your car) on public roads where an accident is a possibility. Why should you get a free full paint job and be unjustly enriched as a result of an apparently minor accident ?

At what point in my post did I say I was asking the insurance company for a full paint job?? I stated that I was willing to pay a reasonable ammount OVER the insurance job out of my pocket. I asked the shop how much more $$$ to paint everything, and they said they don't do all overs. just the damaged area.
The woman that hit my car is responsible, and her insurance company is paying for repairs. I have not even THOUGHT about asking them to pay for an all over, and I even told the insurance adjuster I didn't expect them to, and I knew the paint would not match.

Several things don't sound right here. (1) You apparently weren't worried enough about your car that you neglected to have your own full coverage insurance on your car or your insurance company would have paid to repair the damaged area.

I have full coverage. It is not my insurance companys fault. I would not even approach them about it unless the woman that hit me did not have coverage.

(2) it just doesn't sound right that the insurance company would not total your car based on $7,000 worth of add ons you bolted to your car.

They were going to total it based on the KBB value of a STOCK '95 Mustang GT convertible in pre wreck condition of around $6500.00 I then told him that there was $7K of aftermarket suspension/wheels & tires/ engine, etc.. and then they agreed with the repair. Total value at that point was $13,500.00

(3) why would you put $7,000 worth of add ons on a car with a really faded paint job ? wouldn't it have made more sense to spend half of that on a new paint job ?

Well, yes. But only if I did the $7K add ons overnight. I'm sure you understand that paint fades over time, as does my bolt on addiction. I've owned this car for over 5 years. And part of the $7K is in replacement body panels still in the garage. Cobra R hood and front bumper and Kenan S281 rear spoiler. Since I bought them for the car, the adjuster told me I would be paid for them too. Along with any other small items I might have in my garage awaiting attachment to the car.
I was actually planning on painting it last fall, but my son managed to get himself in a little trouble at school that required me driving him everyday to an alternative school. So I could not take the car off the road for a week or more.


If I were the paint shop repairing your car I would follow through on the contract that my shop has with the insurance company which is to repair and paint the damaged area with the color based on paint code tag on your car. What you do with the car after it leaves my shop would be up to you (drive it as is or pay to have the rest of the car painted, the choice would be yours to make).

Insurance company wrote ME the check. It is a contract with ME. It is MY money to spend as I want. If I want to hammer out the quarter and drive the car looking like a sack of potatos with a trailer light attached as a tail lamp, it is my decision to do so. That's advantage of holding the title to your car by paying cash for it.
Amd again, so you fully understand, I offered to pay the difference to prep and spray the additional 60% of the car. But when the shop starts talking $4K to $8K, it's time to call BS on their operation and just settle for no paint at all so I can take it elsewhere, even if I have to do it myself.

And jsut to clear things up a little, the day I dropped the car off, I asked the estimate writer/desk jockey if they would be willing to do just the bodywork and put it in primer and I was told, "That should be no problem. I'm sure we could work something out...."
And now a month later they tried changing their agreement with me after they made it clear they did not want to do an all over.

The more I do work for people the more I realize many are lawsuit happy and looking to get something for nothing.

Ran into that more and more often when I was in home improvements - especially from doctors and lawyers. Luckily, I had an older partner who learned how to avoid problems, as it seems this body shop did.
Seems to me, all they have to do is word the contract that there will be no painting other than primer, with no guarantee, and have the customer sign and notarize the agreement. In addition, I'd have some other stipulations, such as, the car would not be released unless the customer signed a document that said he/she is satisfied with the workmanship.
In this case, Scott has more than a casual business relationship with this shop. Apparently, they were burned so many times, they can't trust anyone.

I don't know why your panties are in such a bunch. We match faded laser red quite frequently at our shop. How you figure the shop is taking "your money" by painting the damaged areas on the insurance companies dime is beyond me. Funny that you priced ppg laser red paint to do the car yourself and the materials were $1k, yet you think the shop should paint your car for $2K.

Not for anything, but there doesn't seem to be evidence that Scott priced PPG laser red paint for $1000. Furthermore, the insurance company paid Scott, not the body shop. Therefore, if they went ahead and painted part of the car, he'd still have to repaint the entire car, which would end up costing him money. It would cost him the labor and material the shop would charge, plus the paint to repaint what the shop already painted.
As Scott said, he thinks $2000 over and above what the insurance company paid him is a fair price to paint the rest of the car that was not covered in the settlement. But the shop doesn't do all overs, and if they did, they'd want $4000 to paint 60% of the car, plus what they figured for painting the 40% that was damaged. That's where the problem started.
Scott figures he'll end up painting the car, so he wants the shop to just do the body work and primer. That's where the problem escalated, since the shop no longer releases cars without being painted, for legal reasons. But before he was told of this policy, Scott was basically assured that something could be worked out so he could just have the damage repaired, and the repaired area primered. It wasn't the owner who made this assurance, so whoever it was, apparently misspoke
Scott is a good customer, and recommends the shop often, plus his brother is the shop's insurance broker for the business. So Scott used his brother's relationship with the shop to work out a deal, and convinced the owner to just do the repairs without painting.
Problem solved.