GM Removing Policy Codes from LTG

[David Henson]

OK, is it just me or is everyone else thinking whats up with GM removing (first) Policy S from the LTG? And now its Policies D and E. In my humble opinion, this is making already (sometimes) difficult coverage/allowance identification even worse.

As an example, lets say a new to GM warranty administrator never got to see bulletin 02-00-89-001 outlining the elimination of Policy S and what labor ops it still applies to. Will they ever find out on their own? Maybe for a year or so theyd pick up on it, but what about 2 years from now? Will it just be forgotten? What do you think was the intent of removing Policy S identifier in the first place? Or is it that obvious?

Then along comes Admin message WIW20030006 (2/10/2003) announcing that the LTG no longer codes specific labor operations with a policy D or E.

In the old days (before ADP bought Warranty Wizard), you might be able to count on an aftermarket LTG software company to at least keep the policy markers in the LTG. Where's the harm? Seems to me there is an open market out there for someone to develop, or enhance, an LTG program that would still include this pertinent information.

[jazdale]

Dave,

Could you explain to me what these policy codes mean?

Dale

[David Henson]

In the past, policy codes were "attached" to certain labor operations identifying special policies that might apply.

For example, Policy code 'S' identified that a labor operation might be due administrative time for additional paperwork or "move time" required to administer the claim or complete the repair.

Policy code 'D' identified labor operations that carried extended diesel warranty coverage.

Policy code 'E' identified emission control coverage, which can vary widely depending on the type of emission system or state.

[sheri01]

MY OPINION IS THAT GM HAS DECIDED NOT TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR THE DEALER TO CLAIM THE ALLOWANCES. REALLY GUYS, AT .2-.5 PER REPAIR ENTITLED TO THE POLICY S, THIS AMOUNT WILL BE 4.00-8.00 PER TENTH PER CLAIM, DEPENDING ON THE DEALERS WARRANTY LABOR RATE. AND THIS WITHOUT THE NEED TO DO SAMPLE AUDITS, REP CLAIM REVIEWS, OR ANYTHING ELSE. IF THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR IS NOT A NIT-PICKER, THESE ALLOWANCES WILL NOT BE CLAIMED ANY LONGER. TALK ABOUT THE EASY WAY TO REDUCE WARRANTY EXPENSE!!!! AND, LOOK-THE DEALER DID IT TO HIM/HERSELF!!
AT LEAST, THAT IS MY TAKE ON THE SITUATION.

[robc]

This change was the lead for the upcoming March 15 issue of Warranty Dollars & Sense.

In my opinion, I think it is quite clear that GM is eliminating such designations to save themseleves a buck. The only questions is if all they are considering is their own adminitrative time in researching and assigning the policy designations, or (if I am as cynical to believe) that they are purposefully causing confusion in hope they get out of paying for something they rightfully should.

My honest wish is that this comes back to bite them in the form of a charge for violating the federal or state emission laws for failing to provide manadated coverage. Of course, they'd just blame those lazy dealers fo not knowing the coverage, like any GM ASM knows the *exact* part coverage on either diesel or California emission coverage.

I'd be surprised if we weren't talking about GM, a company that has proved over and over again to provide no help to dealer's warranty administration.


------------------
** Rob, Editor WD&S **
Help is only a message post away!
robc@dealersedge.com

[David Henson]

Rob, funny you should mention the "diesel emission coverage." While researching information on past emission coverages (in reference to the above mentioned Admin Message), the more I read the more confused I became.

It's like GM has just recently invented the phrase "diesel emission coverage" and is trying to give it new meaning as well.

Take a look at Admin Message WIW20030006 again and you'll see that it states: "Diesel emissions coverage is 5/50 for 1999 and all prior year models on light duty vehicles. After 5/50 it is subject to a $100 deductible up to 100,000 miles."

A look back at the 1999 GM P&P (Article 1.2 page 9), however, contradicts this statement, as it says light duty trucks with light duty gas or 6.5 diesel engine had a 2/24 (covered to end of BTB) with 8/80 converter and PCM coverage.

Only light and medium duty trucks with "heavy duty gasoline engines" had a 5/50 emission warranty and only medium duty equipped with "heavy duty diesel emissions" carried a 5/100,000 warranty.

The Admin Message also says: "2000 - 2003 diesel emission coverage is 5/100,000 with no deduct."

Now I'm not clear where that came from, as the latest version of the P&P (Article 1.2.3) says light duty trucks with diesel engines carry a 5/50 emission warranty.

The other problem I have with this message is the "list" of labor operations eligible for diesel engine warranty coverage. I particularly take issue with the statement, "...this list should be viewed as a general guideline...and may not include mid-year changes..."

So in other words, this list is good today, but maybe not tomorrow. What's a warranty administrator to do? Hopefully, GM will reconsider this decision to eliminate these identifiers and clarify coverage.

[This message has been edited by David Henson (edited 03-03-2003).]

[DaleH]

I strongly believe this is another way for GM to save $... as posted prior new warranty administrators and service managers will not know about the extra $ they can claim. And their reps surely will not tell them about it.

This is along the same line as the time reductions that occured with the 800 series trucks vs the 400 series a couple of years ago. WD&S even published a letter from me regarding this and the outcome of a meeting where two GM reps, the 800 series platform manager, and an auditor instructed me to claim the time difference and authorize it with an 'E'. Not one claim ever was questioned.

I thought all heck would break loose after the letter was published, as I know GM people read WD&S - however NOT A SINGLE WORD ever came of it... which just made it seem all the more likely that GM was ok with paying the extra time to us just pacify us... and hundreds of other dealerships were losing lots of warranty $, which GM looked at as just money in the bank.

That's my .02 anyway

[sheri01]

I WILL PREFACE THIS WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

I DO NOT NOW, AND HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR WD&S. THIS CAN BE CONFIRMED BY ROB CAMPBELL AND JIM MUNTZ. ALSO, I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL ANYTHING.

IF ANY OF YOU OUT THERE HAVE NEW WA'S I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU BUT THE WD&S WARRANTY INFORMATION MANUALS. THE CURRENT TOPIC, AND CURRENT TRENDS JUST SCREAM OUT
"WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WILL COST YOU, AND COST YOU BIG TIME"

THE LOSS OF THESE ADDS FROM LESS THAN TWENTY AVERAGE CLAIMS WILL MORE THAN PAY FOR THESE BOOKS. UNLESS YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO BURN, MAKE SURE THE "NEWBIES" HAVE THE RESOURCES TO LEARN THE JOB PROPERLY.

SOME MAY THINK THAT "EVERYONE KNOWS THIS", BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT THEY DON'T. AND DO NOT COUNT ON THE W.A. AT YOUR COMPETITOR TO CALL UP AND EDUCATE OTHERS IN THEIR AREA. IT VERY SELDOM HAPPENS.

IN THIS CASE, KNOWLEDGE IS NOT POWER, IT IS MONEY IN THE BANK, BETTER THE DEALER'S BANK THAN THE MANUFACTURER'S

OK, I AM OFF MY SOAPBOX NOW.
OKAY, I AM OFF MY SOAPBOX NOW,

[djoos]

I agree with you, Rob. Hopefully this will come back to bite GM where it hurts. I have been a W/A for several years and while I know a lot, I couldn't possibly know every single covered component under Policy E and D. I can see customer's getting upset and CSI going in the toilet. I think that GM is just out to save themselves a buck! It's wrong!

[This message has been edited by djoos (edited 03-19-2003).]

[Woopigsooie]

If you are waiting until the job is done to determine if it is warranty or not you have bigger problems. To determine coverage for a customer is must be done on the front end. The policy codes are not in the LTG to determine warranty elgibility.