In the News: On the Internet

Over ten years ago when websites were a still a mystery to most of us, who ever thought the day would come where we would be defending the right to use our own name on the internet??

In an attempt to clear up any confusion or customer doubt, we are meeting the subject of a recent news article head-on. The CNY Business Journal and Channel 9 WSYR TV reported on a customer’s spouse who took our trademarked name and developed a website bashing us.

In our opinion, the “person” made comments on the website that appeared to perpetuate misinformation regarding the repair to his spouse’s vehicle. I make this differentiation between customer and spouse because we never had any interaction with the spouse until some 2-3 weeks after the repairs. It appeared that the spouse was not intimate with the facts surrounding the details of the repair, or declined to admit them. He also declined to admit what role the insurance company played in limiting the claim and allowances. These misguided facts in the wrong hands led to explosive results and an expensive ordeal.

At various junctures, letters sent by our attorneys outlined steps to an amiable resolution. Because of the manner in which the spouse handled the situation, lines of communication were closed. In our experience, it’s very hard to reason with an unreasonable person. Our customer was always respectful. In our opinion, her spouse was not.

To say no business ever wants to sue a customer is an understatement. But our options in this case were few. On the advice of counsel we commenced a lawsuit in Federal Court for trademark infringement, cyber-squatting and defamation.

In very short order our attorneys at Bond Schoeneck and King, PLLC, were able to obtain a Judgment in Federal Court. The Judge signed a permanent injunction shutting down the site and any other links associated with it. The injunction prohibited any future defamatory comments and remains in place forever.

In our opinion the actions of this person were misguided and senseless. We are always willing to work out any concerns with reasonable, polite people; understanding we will do our best to represent our customers’ interests and still be limited by what the insurance company offers. We will however make the promise that each of our customers is informed of potential concerns during their repair, and given options to remedy many scenarios.

We will not jump back and forth between customer and cozy insurance deals looking for what’s best only for us. Our contract provides you and our company with the specific opportunity to decide a reasonable course of action and responsibility.

If during the repair an insurance company denies a part(s) or procedure(s) or limits (caps) payment, if they propose something we feel unreasonably effects the safety features or warranty of your vehicle, you will be kept informed. Our intent is to supply you with enough knowledge so that you can ultimately decide.

A common example would be that some manufacturers “recommend” part replacement when certain parts are damaged, as a matter of liability. Typically after any part is damaged in any manner the manufacturer wants off the warranty and liability hook understandably. However most insurance company appraisers are instructed to resist payment for new parts if there is any potential for repair. You ask, “What are your options?” We can sometimes talk them [insurers] into a new part by using manufacturer technical information and explaining risk and exposure. We can try to rationalize the collateral damage that replacing a part would cause vs repairing the part. A manufacturer may recommend a new part be used but installation could prove more invasive than practical. It is reasonable that replacement effects might exceed safety concerns. Meaning: repairing the old part would yield a more sensible repair. We often have to explain what it could mean to you in terms of cost, or safety exposure.

Sometimes we may suggest using your collision carrier or the other party’s carrier - if there is one - for an alternate solution. On occasion you may need legal advice. We always welcome your choice of attorney to get involved, it’s your right. You might want to pay for the repairs out-of-pocket and seek legal remedy in some court process. An experienced, well-versed property and injury attorney can be helpful. You have specific rights regarding subrogation. Most attorneys will be able to explain your subrogation rights. Sometimes there is simply no more money left in the policy to pay for needed items due to policy limits. No matter what you decide it will be your decision.

Other shops may not let you decide, or because of a contract they have with an insurance company may not be able to talk to you about it. At Nick Orso’s we have no behind-the-scenes deals with insurance companies. Ultimately our contract of repair holds us harmless if you decide against our advice or if payment is limited. We will limit warranty if you decide against our advice.

For over 55 years we have provided honest, quality collision repair services to consumers. We are concerned with everyone’s safety. We always provide a written warranty on repairs that we make. Common sense dictates we can’t and will not accept liability on what we are NOT allowed to fully repair.

Consequently we offer a limited warranty on some repairs. As the consumer you have the choice to heed our advice and be ready to help us-help you. You may also follow the path of least resistance but the end result may not be what you expect. If you don’t care to support us, don’t expect us to perform a miracle.

Sincerely, Mike Orso, President

Copy Rights Reserved Nick’s Garage Inc. 2007