Repainting question

[Barry Wolk]

My '55 Porsche in in for repairs. The entire passenger side was taken down to bare metal. The shop that's doing the bodywork is telling me that I have to repaint the entire car as blending over an existing paint job will eventually fail.

I'm being told that the solvents in the new paint will etch down into the previous layers and eventually make them separate. On most cars this isn't a problem as the shop would just shoot the entire panel after taking it to bare metal. This is a unibody car and there are absolutely no natural break lines so the paint would have to be blended. It's this blended overlap of previous layers of primer and paint that are the problem.

The insurance company is saying the shop is not telling me the truth. I think that they don't want to pay to paint the entire car. The adjuster says the shop is handing me a line but others have taken the shop's view. What are your thoughts?

[Twitch]

I don't know the answer but you will probably have to pay an independent appraiser/arbitrator to sort it out. I had good results with this and it cost $400

[R W Burgess]

Barry, I believe you said this paint was an older paint job? If so, it has already started to fade, even though you may not notice it. Blending will still leave a paint job that looks different, side to side, in years to come. Scrimping now will hurt later. The car's in the paint shop with someone willing to paint it. Do the job right now!

Wayne

[Ron Green]

I had my Amphicar trunk and rear quarter panel blended by a very high end restoration shop that has over 40 years in the business. The old paint (14 years) and new paint blended perfectly however if the vehicle is indoors on occasion (light, angle, etc) you can see the blend area at the trunk as the quarter panel has the belt line that fools the eye.

By doing test sprays with different air pressures, guns, etc they can typically match the paint perfectly. When they compound the two areas at the match point(s) together there can be problems. At least that is what I believe they told me. I am not a painter. I have had zero solvent issues, 3 1/2 years and counting.

I wasn't to worried about seeing the small blend at the trunk (only at a certain angle) as the entire vehicle is scheduled to be painted next year. Paint the whole car.

[Guest BillP]

However your discussions with the insurance company turn out, the whole car should be repainted. If it was an ordinary car, the blend may or may not show. On this car, especially with the entire rear 1/4, door and front side down to metal, blending probably wouldn't be completely un-noticeable. You're a third of the way there, might as well do the rest. Note: you might be able to get away with not doing the other door, deck lid and trunk lid if they are undamaged.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Maroon has always seemed to be an "unstable" color, in terms of fading and weather resistance... even if the insurance company is only willing to pay for a partial re-paint, I think you will be happier if the entire vehicle is stripped and painted.

Can't speak on whether the new paint will react badly with what's presently on the car... but if it does, what will be the extent of dealing with that scenario ( an entire strip & repaint? If so, why not just do it all now ?)...

[Friartuck]

There are sealers that alledgedly act as barriers between old layers and new material, but for a collector car, I would strip the whole thing. Even with a few "rubles" out of pocket expense, you'll be happier in the end. The transition between new and old may even appear and then what would it be to re-do it. Do it right now. As a rule, I don't put good (new) over old.

Chris

[Matt Harwood]

I agree with everyone else that you should demand that the car be repainted in entirety. The insurance company's job is to make your car as it was before the accident. They don't get to pick the shop, and the quality of workmanship should be equal to the caliber of vehicle (very high in this case).

That said, they could probably shoot a few coats of epoxy primer over the existing lacquer without problems down the line, then recoat with urethane or enamel. Your shop is correct in saying that if they spray more lacquer, the solvents in the new paint may very well affect the substrate. That's lacquer's curse and blessing--it dries fast, and the solvents "reactivate" the previous layer(s) so they blend together into one coating.

This car deserves to be repaired correctly which means a repaint. This isn't a 4-year-old Monte Carlo or something, it's a show car. If you can see the line (and you will) between new and old, it hasn't been returned to pre-accident condition. Your shop is the expert, hold the insurance company to it.

Perhaps you should ask them what they plan to do for you should the new partial repaint fail sometime down the line? Will they pay to have it repainted again and this time completely? Doing it correctly now will probably end up saving them money (but they're an insurance company, they're probably not smart enough to see that).

[R Walling]

I am a professional painter, and I know a lot about the insurance laws, if the car is painted with two stage paints, (catalyzed paint) and there are no panel breaks to stop painting at, the entire car MUST be repainted.

EVERY Paint Manufacturer mandates this.

If it is lacquer, it can be blended and may be show quality or may not. If it is not show quality, then the insurance company did not repaint the car to "pre loss condition. The car did not have two different shades of paint before the accident and if the paint cannot be made to match the aged paint, it in not be repaired correctly.

The insurance company has the option to replace parts (including paint) with equal OR BETTER than pre loss condition. If they chose to use new paint on one side and it does nor match the other side, then it is their fault and it is not repaired correctly!

They MUST return your car back to pre loss condition or better according to your policy.

Don?t let them deduct for Betterment. You didn?t want it better; you just wanted it back to pre loss condition As per the policy.

I have added flatling agent and tints to the new paint to make it resemble the condition on the rest of the car, but in your case, I think that it would be cheaper to re paint the whole car rather than match the other side.

Ps, there is something called ?Diminished Value? that they defiantly not want to discuss with you! (Is your damaged and repaired car of equal value with a car that has not been damaged?) (Given the choice between two identical cars, one of them had been damaged and the other one that has never been in an accident, which one would you pay more for?)

[barry22]

Even if the shop could paint the passenger side of your Porsche to match the existing paint perfectly there is still a dilemma. The existing paint on the car has undergone some level of fading. Even if it is slight, what the shop has done is matched new paint with faded paint. In a couple of years the recently sprayed passenger side will undergo some degree of fading. Can the insurance company guarantee the pasenger side paint will then match the paint on the rest of the car? Of course not. If it were my car, I would pursue a repaint of the entire vehicle.

[Guest palosfv3]

Barry can you contact me .I have info thats helpful but to lenghty to post

Larry

[Barry Wolk]

Thanks for your time Larry. That was educational.

[R Walling]

<img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

[R Walling]

Larry, If your information on refinishing a car has to do with receiving proper reimbursement from an insurance company for repairs, it would be of great interest to all that have had trouble with low ball payments from insurance companies. Please take the time to reply with facts of interest.

[Barry Wolk]

The pen is mightier than the sword. Base on info gathered here and the the Lincoln Forum.net web site I decided to stand my ground and yesterday I wrote the following letter.

"Dear McKeel,

We have met several times at Concours across the country. I'm also a supporter of your Michigan bill that aids classic car owners. I have the 1956 Continental Mark II convertible. It was on display in front of the Capitol building last year during your event. Last week I wrote you about my first claim with Hagerty Insurance and how it was such a positive experience dealing with your firm.

I wish to retract last week's letter and substitute it with this one.

You insure our 1955 Porsche Continental convertible. It is insured for $75,000. It was damaged in a collision while in transport in another of your insured, our 1951 Royal Spartanette "Toybox".

The Porsche came loose on the "toybox's" impact with the guard rail, and smashed the entire passenger side of the car into the inside wall of the trailer.

The car was taken to Autometrics Collision in Pontiac. Larry Smith is a long-term friend and has agreed to repair the Porsche, even though the only classic car work done in his shop are cars that are in his collection.

An estimate was written and the bump work began to repair the car. The passenger side was ground to bare metal. I went to see the progress and was told by both the shop manager and his top bodyman that I wouldn't be happy with the final paint job since a blended paint job now requires the use of modern paints that are not always compatible with the original lacquer paint job. I was advised to take it bare metal all over the car to ensure the longevity of the paint job. The cost to do this is $8,000.

Unlike most cars, the Porsche is a unibody car, with no natural body breaks to stop painting at. The fenders are all welded on so there are also no seams to paint to, so the paint must be blended.

The blending of paints is what concerns me and experts I've contacted. Based on what I've been told by many experts now, it is problematic to both match and blend the paint. The problems don't crop up right away - usually two or three years up the road, when the effect of having overlaid different types of paints will cause lower levels to separate and blister. Also, newer paints must be clear coated, which is inappropriate for the existing lacquer paint job. Urethane paints fade at a different rate than lacquer, so I would be very dissatisfied with a blended paint job.

I contacted Michelle Nxxxxxx and asked that Hagerty assist in covering the cost of painting the whole car as a proactive move against future failure. Three days later Michelle got back to me and told me that Hagerty would not pay, or even assist in paying for a complete paint job.

I told her that I had consulted experts on the subject that disagreed with her and her supervisor and asked if she had consulted any experts and she said no, she hadn't. I asked if she or her supervisor had any knowledge of painting cars, and she again said no. I further queried how she could have made a final decision without even consulting the independent adjuster, shop, or any experts. She then agreed to contact some experts.

In effect, my claim was summarily dismissed without any effort on the part of Michelle, or her supervisor, to properly investigate my claim.

Several day later I received another communication that flatly refused my claim. I asked if Hagerty would stand behind a blended paint job and she said no. I then asked what the appeal process was and I have not heard back. That was several days ago. I now know that, by state law, I have a right to binding arbitration. Why wasn't I told that?

We have a second problem. Your firm wouldn't pay for the damaged hitch on the trailer because it was the cause of the accident. I asked for an explanation and was told that Hagerty never covers the cause of the accident. That's not really an explanation, is it?

Interestingly, Michelle arranged for an investigator to come out to inspect the very hitch you wouldn't pay for, in the hopes that there would be a basis for subrogation against the manufacturer or retailer to recover the $60,000 in damages to the trailer and car. The investigator asked that I maintain possession of the failed hitch so that it could be presented as evidence in a court case, if necessary. If you were in my shoes, how likely would it be that you would assist Hagerty in recovering $60,000 if it wouldn't pay for the hitch, or the $8,000 to strip and paint the rest of the car?

Had your claims people actually done some research before summarily dismissing my claim I may not have written this letter. Their failure to think outside the box has infuriated me beyond words."

Barry Wolk

Farmington Hills

(313) 387-xxxx

Insured by Hagerty:

1955 Porsche Continental convertible

1956 Continental Mark II convertible

1968 Lincoln limousine

1977 Lincoln Town Car

1988 BMW 750iL

This morning I received a call from the VP of Claims at Hagerty. He agreed with every one of my points and offered to pay half of the $8,000 to strip and repaint the rest of the car. I said no. They blew that chance when I offered it early on. I wanted to be paid in full and he agreed.

They even agreed to pay for the hitch on the trailer that was excluded in the previous claim.

[Guest Randy Berger]

Good concise well-presented facts will succeed where name-calling and swearing will fail. Great letter and it has achieved the desired result. Congratulations!

[R Walling]

Most consumers, when they confront the insurance companies with the facts, and demand reasons,

in writing, from the company as to why the policy will not pay, will prevail in the full cost

of the repair.

The reason, simply, is the contract of insurance says it will pay!

Any thing that they say, is just an offer to settle the claim!

[barry22]

Your letter is very well written and objectively highlights the rationale for a full body repaint of your Porsche. The facts contained in your letter and the way you presented them made it difficult for the insurance company to legally disavow meeting their obligation.

[Barry Wolk]

I really appreciate the support and feedback that I got here.

I hope this thread will give others the ammunition to go toe-to-toe with their insurance company. I don't know if I would have had the confidence had I not received your support.

Thank you!

P.S. They should make this an informational sticky.

[R Walling]

In all fairness to your insurance company, it was probably was the independent

appraiser that caused all the trouble. They are so used to insurance companies

demanding that they cut the estimate to the bone, or less. She just didn?t know what

to do on a classic car.

I have heard that most Classis Car Insurers usually pay the full cost of the

repair with out any arguments.