ATTENTION: The glassBYTEs.com forum is being retooled and will return with a new look and functionality that will hopefully help our readers even more. Watch for an announcement when it will be ready, it will be a few months.
You can still stay up on daily news and comment on stories by signing up for the glassBYTEs daily e-newsletter at glass.com/subcenter. There is no charge. Hope to see you there!
Most of my installs are aftermarket glass. Subaru insists on recalibration. Ford and GM didn't seem concerned at all. Both said the driver will know if it isn't working properly.
Dealerships probably want to sell glass which is why they are balking at recal on aftermarket w/s. And well before ADAS came along the local Toyota dealer would tell their customers they have to use OEM...
Anyone remember the movie Crimson Tide? At the end, Jason Robards says to Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman that, officially, their behavior was unacceptable by Naval and Nuclear Code. Unofficially, what would be occupying the minds of the court, and committee, for some time to come, is that they were BOTH right, and there in lies the problem....
I can see the dealer's standpoint for not wanting to do a recal on parts they have no control, warranty, procedures, but ALL of the liability, for, IF they do the recal.
I can also see the car owner's side, and I can also see the shop's side.
I found it VERY interesting reading the quotes from Mr. Olive, who I greatly respect, that he was "irritated" that the insurer and dealer essentially gave him and the glass company a black eye, and that his AM parts that the INSURER AUTHORIZED were not returnable. Obviously, they were not getting paid to do the job a SECOND TIME with OEM parts, AFTER the INSURER authorized the AM parts, or he wouldn't likely have made that statement. The insurer more than the dealer, effectively tossed the glass shop deliberately, and squarely, under the proverbial bus. No surprise there.
This issue isn't really new, body shops have been dealing with it for some time, but NOW we have "SCANNING" that reveals the inadequacies of AM parts, that weren't there before. Many collision shops get PAID to do the the second time, and have the smarts to place the liability monkey right back onto the "authorizing insurer" for the AM parts in the FIRST place, rather than later....but if the shop has signed a contract of "some kind" with a "third party" to do "things" that may not be in the best interests of the property owner who HIRED the shop to repair the property....well, gee, that's a PROBLEM now, isn't it? Brings back to mind all of those "benefits of membership" discussions and strings on this board, yes?
It's going to take some time to work this out, no doubt, and it will ALL be based on the simple issue of liability. Oh, and BTW, the car manufacturer has the ultimate say in the proper repair procedures for the car, and IS assuming ALL liability for those procedures. That ultimately will answer the question to ANY court that may ask the question, and has, of who says what goes, and what doesn't.
Maybe Mr. Thompson as the editor Of AGGR can pursue this issue and find some answers. Obviously us guys here on the forum don't have the resources or knowledge that would be required to carry this out...
I have the resources to solve the problem and I did solve the problem. We are going to Louisville instead of Nashville It is just a pain in the butt when no one knows who's in charge. I can see this as a topic at the next Auto Glass Confrence