IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

 

LEIFS AUTO COLLISION CENTERS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Plaintiff vs. YY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

} } } } } } } } } } }

Case No. XXXXX DECLARATION OF LEIFS CUSTOMER XXX

   I, LEIFS CUSTOMER XXX declare:

1.    On June 10, 2003, my 1998 Honda Accord sustained collision damage from a motor vehicle accident. I made a claim with my insurance company, YYY Insurance Company.



2.   YY1, a YY Insurance field adjuster in Vancouver, wrote a repair bid for approximately $5,400.00



3.   A claims representative for YY Insurance recommended that I take my vehicle to a YY-preferred shop to perform the repairs. Relying on the advice of my insurer, I took my vehicle to ZZ Auto Body to obtain an estimate only. ZZ Auto Body would not write a repair bid. ZZ Auto Body also tore down my vehicle without my permission.



4.   I took the YY Insurance bid to another shop which wrote a repair bid for approximately $8,000.00. I requested that YY Insurance issue me a check for that amount. YY Insurance refused because they said that I was not the owner of the vehicle. I paid off the vehicle and requested payment from YY Insurance again. YY Insurance still refused to issue a check without reason.



5.   I told YY2, a YY Insurance claims adjuster, that I wanted to take my vehicle to Leif’s Auto Collision Center, a shop that YY Insurance had no contract with, to perform the repairs. He became irritated and vigorously attempted to persuade me not to take my vehicle to Leif’s. He told me that Leif’s may charge me administrative fees that YY Insurance would not pay. He told me that he ddidn'tt want my vehicle to go to Leif’s.



6.   After I brought my vehicle to Leif’s, Leif’s informed me that numerous small parts were missing from my vehicle. ZZ1 from ZZ Auto Body admitted to me that his shop “tossed” those parts. ZZ1 told me that YY Insurance would take care of the missing parts.



7.   Leif’s repaired my vehicle according to the pre-approved agreement between Leif’s and YY Insurance that took place on 8/18/03 and which resulted in an initial repair bid of $7,830.02. This initial bid was made with the understanding that it did not include the missing parts prices and that, consequently, it would increase when those prices were known.



8.   Upon completion of the repair, Leif’s customer service representative informed me that YY2 told OO, a Leif’s employee, that I would be personally responsible for paying about $1,700.00 of the repair cost. I contact YY2 at YY Insurance for an explanation; he informed me that the difference was attributable to parts. This was the first time that anyone from YY Insurance told me that I would be financially responsible for the parts lost by YY Insurance’s preferred shop.



9.    After unproductive conversations with YY2, I contacted his supervisor, YY3 for an accounting of the $1,700.00 difference. In contradiction to his subordinate, YY2, he told me that the difference resulted from labor, not parts. He said that Leif’s was overcharging for labor. He said that Leif’s has a history and reputation of overcharging for its labor, implying that Leif’s was dishonest or unscrupulous.



10.   I asked YY3 to meet with Leif’s representatives and myself to review the difference. He assured me that YY2 or another YY Insurance representative would meet with me at Leif’s. I attempted to arrange a meeting with YY2; he refused to attend any meeting with myself and representatives of Leif’s. I scheduled a meeting at Leif’s for 10/9/03 at 1:30; Leif _____, the shop owner, and Gavin _____, Leif’s blueprinter, among other Leif’s representatives attended. I informed YY Insurance of the meeting time and location; no one from YY Insurance showed up at the meeting.



11.   During the meeting at Leif’s, I learned that the total labor cost increased by only $80.00. I also learned that approximately $888.00 in additional parts was needed; taxes of $450.00 were added; and, $73.00 in additional repair materials and miscellaneous items were necessary.



12.   As of this date, no one from YY Insurance is willing to review the difference with Leif’s and myself.

      I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and is subject to penalty of perjury.