Introducing the new generation one -stop Sik kens basecoat, Autowave® Optima.
Multiply productivity and sustainability with up to 50% faster process times and 60% lower energy costs – all enhanced by Sikkens digital solutions and services.
You’ve got the right tools, staff, technology and procedures to give your customers the best repair possible. The missing piece of the puzzle? Genuine Volkswagen Collision Parts. Contact an authorized dealer today and find your perfect fit.
Mattie Volkswagen 80 William S. Canning Blvd. Fall River, MA 02771 800-678-0914 fax: 508-730-1283
Lia Volkswagen 140 Elm Street Enfield, CT 06083 860-698-6890
fax: 860-265-7840 www.liavw.com
Quirk Auto Dealers 115 E. Howard St. Quincy, MA 02169 Toll Free: 877-707-8475
Volkswagen of Hartford 133 Leibert Road Hartford, CT 06120
Direct Parts: 860-543-6012 fax: 860-728-4408 email: ebautista@vwofhartford.com
Balise Volkswagen 525 Quaker Ln. West Warwick, RI 02893 TOLL FREE: 800-992-6220 FAX: 800-254-3544
wparts@baliseauto.com www.BaliseWholesaleParts.com One Call, One Truck for 14 Brands!
“Volkswagen“ and the Volkswagen logo are registered trademarks of Volkswagen AG.
Mastria Volkwagen 1619 New State Highway Raynham, MA 02767
Toll Free: 888-581-1146
Direct Parts: 508-802-9955
fax: 508-802-9966
email: vwparts@mastria.com www.mastriavw.com
Wholesale Parts
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
6 | A Total Loss Shouldn’t Be a Total Loss for Your Shop by Matthew Ciaschini
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
8 | We Are off and Running by Evangelos “Lucky” Papageorg
24 | Institutional Bias? It’s a Madhouse at the ADALB by Chasidy Rae Sisk
12 | AASP/MA Representatives Share Success Stories with Tennessee Collision Repairers by Alana Quartuccio
16 | SAFE Repair Act Focuses on Consumer Protection by Alana Quartuccio
7 | AASP/MA MEMBER APPLICATION 21 | AASP/MA VENDOR AFFINITY PROGRAM SPONSORS
34 | The True Cost of Aftermarket Parts: Why Insurers’ Short-Sighted Cost Cutting is Costing Everyone More by Coverall Law and Sean Preston (Managing Attorney)
MATTHEW CIASCHINI
A Total Loss Shouldn’t Be a Total Loss for Your Shop
As collision repairers, we are charged with performing safe repairs to ensure that the vehicles leaving our shops are capable of protecting occupants if a subsequent crash occurs. But many of us also feel it’s our duty to protect customers from other problems that arise during the repair and claim process, such as when we see them being taken advantage of by their insurance carriers. It only makes sense that we step up and advocate for consumers in these situations because we’re much more knowledgeable about the vehicles, repairs needed and the claims process than the average customer.
Carriers’ tendency to under-indemnify claims seems to be particularly prevalent when a vehicle is deemed a total loss. The insurers’ unwillingness to be forthright about a totaled vehicle’s value is a well-known problem that our industry has contended with for many years. More recently, we have observed some insurers making threats – and following through on those threats – to deduct fees incurred for total losses from a policyholder’s total loss settlement payout.
The insurers’ objections may relate to storage fees or anything else associated with the actions a shop must take when dealing with these total loss vehicles. And although they’re justifying this behavior by citing a ruling that was decided in a Massachusetts court, that case does not appear to set a precedent that allows insurers to determine what is a fair and reasonable amount to pay for storage or any other fees associated with a total loss, as attorney Sean Preston discussed in the February edition of New England Automotive Report (available at grecopublishing.com/near0225legalperspective).
It’s imperative that shops are aware of this issue and equipped to educate their customers about this possibility before the worstcase scenario actually happens. But understand: lessening charges for insurers does not seem like the best solution for the shop as a
business. As long as you’ve done your due diligence to understand and document your costs, it’s more than reasonable to expect compensation for the investment you’ve made and the processes you’ve performed!
If you find out that a customer’s insurer has taken money out of their settlement because they don’t want to pay your fees, it isn’t your job to come to their rescue. Many of us feel like we need to paint a big “S” on our chest and be Superman to everyone as soon as we open a shop, but that’s not true. As small business owners, our responsibility is to our business and our employees. It’s a business that is extremely expensive to operate, so we deserve to be paid for work performed.
At the same time, we should be willing to help our customers to the best of our ability without it being a detriment to our own interests. This means educating them as soon and as much as possible. Create templates and literature that you can distribute to vehicle owners to help them understand their rights and how the process works, whether their vehicle ends up being repaired or if it’s a total loss…and directing them to contact a lawyer if they need legal advice. By educating our customers, we demonstrate that we have their best interests at heart, and knowledgeable vehicle owners tend to be better aligned with their shops because they understand what we’re trying to do for them: provide them with a safe, reliable vehicle that will ensure their safety on the roadways.
If you’re not sure where to start, reach out to AASP/MA. We’re here to help shops, and we’d be happy to provide some guidance.
AASP/MA
CIASCHINI can be reached at (413) 527-6900 or fulltiltmatthew@gmail.com
Membership Application 2025-2026
P.O. BOX 850210
Braintree, MA 02185
Phone: 617-574-0741
Email: admin@aaspma.org
Please complete this form and return to our office via mail or email with your dues payment. Thank You!
As a member in good standing, your shop WILL BE listed on our website Click here � if you do not want your shop listed on our website map for potential customers to find you. If you have any questions about this benefit, call (617) 574-0741, ext. 1.
Yes � Please send me information regarding the following MONEY SAVING BENEFITS: � Healthcare plan � Dental, Vision plan � PFML savings program � Credit card processing � Grant writing/training � Google presence optimization � All benefits
PLEASE ENCLOSE PAYMENT WITH YOUR MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Check# : ____________ (IF collision shop please note your RS# on the memo line of the check) OR
CC #: ______________ EXP: ________/___________ CID: _________________
Name On Card: _____________________________________________ Signature: _____
Check here � to opt out of auto renewal using this credit card information for future renewal
Note: A 4 percent convenience fee will be charged for membership renewal via credit card transaction I hereby make this application for membership with the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of MA (AASP/ MA) for membership dues 2025-2026 as provided for in this contract. *Membership Dues are for a twelve-month period commencing on your anniversary month of membership
REV 12/24 REFERRED BY _________________________ COMPANY_______________________________
SCAN TO JOIN!
We Are off and Running
George Bernard Shaw once wrote in 1905, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.” This statement is often used in a derogatory manner to discredit educators. While it might hold some truth in certain contexts, history offers a different perspective on teaching. True thinkers and philosophers, such as Socrates, have emphasized the value of teaching. Socrates famously said, “I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.” Aristotle later stated, “Those who know, do. Those who understand, teach.” It is this latter view of teaching that has inspired AASP/MA to offer a course for individuals to become licensed Motor Vehicle Damage Appraisers (MVDA).
By offering the MVDA course, AASP/MA demonstrates that there is no one better suited to teach the essential information needed to become a competent and knowledgeable appraiser of motor vehicle damage. Our goal is to fully inform our course attendees about the language and requirements of all relevant Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) and the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), particularly as they relate to preparing repair estimates, whether in a collision repair facility or for an insurer. Additionally, by providing hands-on experience in a collision repair shop setting, students gain a clearer understanding of the significance of the estimates they prepare. Most importantly, the course is taught by professionals who perform this work day in and day out. Understanding the “why” behind the process makes it easier to comprehend the language of the CMRs and MGLs. Our aim is to produce competent licensed MVDAs, not just individuals who can pass a test.
Being a licensed MVDA is a requirement for writing an estimate for the repair of a vehicle damaged in an accident or another mishap that necessitates cosmetic or structural repairs in
GENUINE GENESIS PARTS.
Contact us for all your Genesis parts needs!
GENESIS OF WEST WARWICK
405 Quaker Lane
West Warwick, RI 02893
TOLL FREE: 800-992-6220
FAX: 800-254-3544
wparts@baliseauto.com
www.BaliseWholesaleParts.com
a Massachusetts collision repair facility. Specifically, if the repairs will be covered by an insurance policy, the estimate must be completed by a qualified individual who has completed a course of study and passed a two-part exam that tests their knowledge – not only of proper repair processes – but also of the associated CMRs and MGLs, of which there are many. An important aspect of this requirement is that only two licensed MVDAs are authorized to negotiate and reach an agreement on the final reimbursement amount between the insurer and the policyholder or the person “damaged” by the policyholder.
At the core of the MVDA requirement is Massachusetts General Law Chapter 26, Section 8G, which established the Auto Damage Appraisers Licensing Board (ADALB), placed under the oversight of the Division of Insurance (DOI). As stated in the fifth paragraph of the governing statute: “The board shall, after notice and hearing in the manner provided in Chapter 30A, adopt rules and regulations governing licenses under this section in order to promote public welfare and safety.” (Emphasis added.) Among the CMRs that the ADALB is responsible for creating and enforcing is 212 CMR 2.0, “The Appraisal and Repair of Damaged Motor Vehicles.” The language in both 212 CMR 2.0 and 211 CMR 133.0, “Standards for the Repair of Damaged Motor Vehicles,” which should be read and followed together, sets the standard for all licensed appraisers to prepare damage estimates.
The 60 hours of classroom instruction covers the various issues that may arise in the estimating process. The course structure and content emphasize that the appraiser’s obligation is to prepare a proper estimate in accordance with the regulations and the required procedures which are owed to the vehicle owner. The appraiser’s obligations are not to make as much money for the collision shop or save the insurer money at the expense or risk to the vehicle owner. It is to write an accurate assessment of the damages.
The language in 212 CMR 2.0 is explicit: “The appraiser shall personally inspect the damaged motor vehicle and shall rely primarily on that personal inspection in making the appraisal… The appraiser shall specify all damage attributable to the accident, theft, or other incident in question and shall also specify any unrelated damage... Manufacturer warranty repair procedures, I-CAR, Tec Cor, and paint manufacturer procedures may also apply…” (Emphasis added.)
by Alana
AASP/MA Representatives Share Success Stories with Tennessee Collision Repairers
The work of AASP/MA has surely not gone unnoticed.
Years of hard work, dedication and passion went into what the Alliance was able to achieve at the close of 2024. Massachusetts has had to suffer the burden of having the lowest labor reimbursement rate in the nation for decades, and finally, something is being done to bring change. Governor Healey signing the Economic Development Bill, which includes language to establish an auto body labor rate advisory board to meet, study and review the labor reimbursement rate is quite a victory in a long – and still ongoing –battle.
The news of this success travelled far and wide amidst the collision repair community. Josh Kent, executive director of the Tennessee Collision Repair Association (TCRA), invited AASP/MA Executive Director Lucky Papageorg to address their members about the work that went into their success and the benefits of lobbying during an association meeting in February.
“Lucky is very passionate about this industry, and he’s found success in Massachusetts,” shares Kent. “It was good to hear a
different take on things from someone outside of the usual suspects we hear from often. I’ve seen Lucky at several events, but I really got to know him at SEMA. I’m glad we had the opportunity to pick his brain and gain from his knowledge as we continue to work toward our goals.”
“We appreciated the opportunity to share our experiences with the TCRA community,” says Papageorg. “Lobbying played a huge role in what we were able to achieve. Our lobbyist, Guy Glodis, has served in the state Senate and the House and was able to help open doors for us. Of course, we could not have achieved success without our members’ unwavering response to our calls to action. Their hard work and dedication was the key to our success, which was part of my message to the TCRA meeting attendees and their BOD.”
The AASP/MA presentation also included Sean Preston of Coverall Law who addressed the TCRA community on the usage of Forever Forms.
The XPress 800: Practicality and Precision for All Riveting Needs
Quality repairers need quality tools to ensure precision in every job, every time. The RAE - Wieländer+Schill XPress 800 Riveting System provides a variety of options for all riveting needs, offering excellent accessibility and effortless maneuverability regardless of the nature of repairs needed.
The XPress 800 is made even more user-friendly with easily interchangeable adaptors, while being lightweight and effortlessly maneuverable. Its power control system includes a convenient STOP key, allowing you to halt tool advancement for adjustments without releasing pump pressure.
The XPress riveting system provides versatility by accommodating various tools for diverse functions and applications, with several customizations available to accommodate any repair needs. Thanks to its modular design, this device seamlessly integrates with a range of hydraulic cylinders and designated C-arms, enabling pressure control for self-piercing rivets, flow form
The XPress 800 Riveting System offers options and customizations to handle a wide variety of repairs.
rivets, blind rivets, punching and blind rivet nuts (when appropriately configured). The basic, standard and full set options offer versatility and portability, enabling repairers to locate the system wherever the job requires. Additional kits are available for specific manufacturers, allowing facilities to adhere to OEM requirements and repair procedures wherever necessary.
At RAE, we recognize that the right tools are only half of the equation. That’s
why we provide comprehensive training with the purchase of tools like the XPress 800, ensuring technicians can confidently master the equipment and perform repairs with precision. This commitment to training helps facilities not only meet, but exceed, OEM standards.
To learn more about the XPress 800 system and our full product offering, visit raeservice.com
That’s because print advertising works. Especially when it’s connected to a powerful trade association.
For over 30 years, Greco Publishing has partnered with the best of the industry to provide trade associations a voice, and to give advertisers a direct outlet to reach buyers.
Today’s shop is inundated with solicitations; advertising with Greco Publishing breaks through the noise to align your company as an association ally, and get you in front of your next customer.
SAFE Repair Act Focuses on Consumer Protection
The Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS), Automotive Service Association (ASA) and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) have come together on proposed landmark Right to Repair legislation that puts emphasis on consumer protection.
In late February, the independent repairers and automakers released the following statement, “The Safety as First Emphasis (SAFE) Repair Act guarantees independent repair facilities will continue to have the same ability to perform diagnostic and repair services as franchised auto dealers. The bill will give consumers confidence that their vehicles are safely repaired, in well-equipped shops, by well-trained technicians using the repair information made available by automakers.”
“I’m really proud of what this proposed language represents, in that it addresses very real challenges independent repair businesses face in trying to serve their customer well,” shares SCRS Executive Director Aaron Schulenburg. “We’ve received very positive reinforcement from our state associations and a very diverse cross section of repair businesses, all of whom have said the same thing; essentially, ‘Thank you, it’s about time someone addressed consumer safety and choice.’”
The three organizations previously came together in July 2023 to establish an Automotive Repair Data Sharing Commitment on behalf of vehicle owners, which “recognizes and reaffirms the belief that consumers should have access to safe and proper repairs throughout a vehicle’s lifecycle.” It also stated, “Independent repair facilities shall have access to the same diagnostic and repair information that auto manufacturers make available to authorized dealer networks.”
The SAFE Repair Act intends to build off that agreement.
A letter addressed to members of
Congress on behalf of the proposed legislation expressed their shared commitment to ensuring that consumers have access to safe, proper and transparent vehicle repairs: “The collaboration between our organizations reflects a unified desire to advance consumer safety and choice while addressing the challenges and opportunities in today’s automotive repair landscape.”
The letter also stated: “While... existing frameworks have created a thriving and competitive repair marketplace, we understand the desire for a federal legislative solution that addresses evolving consumer expectations and technological advancements. That’s why our three organizations have come together to propose a new path forward – one that builds on existing protections while introducing additional measures to prioritize consumer safety and choice.”
During the last congressional session, policymakers considered the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act. That bill mandated access to tools, data and information but was silent on a consumer’s right to ensure these were utilized to restore a vehicle’s safety systems or structure to full
functionality. In fact, safety was never addressed as a priority of the REPAIR Act – but it is a priority of the proposed SAFE Repair Act.
Just five days after the SAFE Repair Act was introduced, a bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroduced the REPAIR Act in Congress.
According to the independent repairers’ and automakers’ statement, “Automotive right-to-repair already exists in the United States. Vehicle owners can get their vehicle serviced in well-equipped shops by welltrained technicians anytime, anywhere and any place. This competitive marketplace is possible because automakers make all of the information needed to diagnose and repair a vehicle available to all vehicle repair shops. This means independent repair shops already have access to the same diagnostic and repair information as authorized dealers. As a result, roughly 70 percent of postwarranty work today is completed out of the automakers’ authorized dealer networks.”
“The reality is the collision repair industry isn’t expressing concerns about not having access to OEM repair information,
Genuine Replacement Parts For the Road
Avoid problems down the road that will cost you time, money and customers. Choose Genuine Subaru Replacement Parts, engineered to fit better today, and perform better tomorrow.
It Takes Genuine Honda Collision Repair Parts To Achieve a Genuine Honda Fit.
Honda collision repair parts are engineered and manufactured to Honda standards. In the collision-repair business, time is money, and you can’t waste time on parts that almost fit properly. Use Genuine Honda replacement parts. Your reputation depends on it.
For Genuine Honda parts, contact these Authorized Honda dealers.
Balise Honda of West Warwick 509 Quaker Lane West Warwick, RI 02893
TOLL FREE: 800-992-6220
FAX: 800-254-3544
wparts@baliseauto.com
www.BaliseWholesaleParts.com
One Call, One Truck for 14 Brands!
GENUINE NISSAN PARTS MAKE ALL
Only Genuine Nissan Parts deliver the fit, reliability, and performance to meet your shop’s collision repair needs. So keep it original, and keep it real with Genuine Nissan Parts.
Contact these Nissan dealers for all your parts needs:
Kelly Nissan of Woburn 95 Cedar Street Woburn, MA 01801
Phone: 781-835-3510
Fax: 781-835-3580
E-mail: mbosma@kellyauto.com www.kellyauto.com
Quirk Auto Dealers 115 E. Howard St. Quincy, MA 02169
Toll Free: 877-707-8475
Balise Nissan of Warwick 1350 Post Rd. Warwick, RI 02888
TOLL FREE: 800-992-6220
FAX: 800-254-3544
wparts@baliseauto.com
www.BaliseWholesaleParts.com
One Call, One Truck for 14 Brands!
or concerned that consumers are seeking out alternative parts and being forced to use OEM parts – this is really what the proponents are saying,” adds Schulenburg. “The pressures collision repairers ARE facing is that consumers want their vehicle repaired correctly, and we recognize the industry has access to the resources they need to accomplish that – but there are obstacles put in the way where consumers are penalized if they choose to repair their vehicle at repair businesses using all the information, procedures, tools and parts that are available to them.
“I think we’ve always felt like if there is a conversation about the ‘Right to Repair,’ it should really be a conversation about the right to receive safe, proper repairs. But it was also important to us to recognize that if we’re going to oppose other bills, it’s equally as important to bring productive and fruitful suggestions on how we can better address the real challenges facing the industry. We wanted to work with other repair groups and with the automakers and collectively present solutions on how we can do a better job to protect consumer choice and protect consumers’ right to have their vehicle repaired safely, following the information that’s already made available to the industry.”
The SAFE Repair Act includes:
• Affirmation of vehicle data access: Ensures consumers and independent repair shops have data needed to repair vehicles.
• Empowers consumers: Ensures consumers retain the right to decide where and how their vehicles are repaired.
• Prioritizes vehicle safety: Guarantees repairs are performed in accordance with manufacturer-produced repair procedures to restore vehicle safety systems and structural integrity.
• Offers part choices: Ensures consumers have a choice between original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts and non-OEM repair parts.
• Protects non-OEM choices: Extends the same recall and safety protections to customers choosing non-OEM parts as currently available for customers choosing OEM parts.
• Enhances transparency: Requires disclosure of prior alterations or repairs for used vehicles.
• Promotes inspection programs: Supports periodic safety inspection and post-collision inspection programs to safeguard against unsafe or improper repairs.
To read more on the SAFE Repair Act, please visit bit.ly/SAFERepairAct.
What a recent auto repair shop client had to say:
“We researched and spoke with multiple brokers. Buddy at Squizzero, Carp & Associates was different from the start. He understood us, and the emotion of selling a business that my husband and I ran for 35+ years. He is extremely knowledgeable, personable and guided us every step of the way. A true professional. We are extremely happy and forever grateful!” -Frank & JoAnn
It’s a Madhouse at the ADALB
“The thoughts written on the walls of madhouses by their inmates might be worth publicizing.”
-Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Last month, New England Automotive Report explored the ineffectiveness of the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board’s (ADALB) actions regarding its never-ending review of proposed revisions to 212 CMR 2.00 et seq (available to read online at grecopublishing.com/near0325coverstory). But are those regulations even enforced? Anyone who has witnessed their handling of complaints in recent years has certainly asked this question, and it seems to be a topic worth exploring more closely.
Disorder. Mayhem. Hullabaloo. These are all synonyms for madhouse, which Websters defines as “a place of uproar or confusion.” Thus, the term madhouse certainly seems to apply to meetings of the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board (ADALB) where bewilderment reigns supreme and little seems to get accomplished…especially when it comes to possible infractions against 212 CMR 2.00 et seq, the regulation by which all licensed appraisers and their employers are bound.
In fact, over the past three years, 83 percent of complaints
reviewed by the Board have been dismissed* based on a preliminary (and generally superficial) perusal.
Alleged regulatory violations are submitted to the ADALB in the form of a written complaint, and after the accused appraiser is notified of the complaints and their rights and options, the Board’s role in the process begins with a preliminary review of the complaint, “either in the executive or public session of the Board meeting as requested by the appraiser, to determine whether to dismiss the matter or pursue further action,” as stated in the
by Chasidy Rae SIsk
“Guidelines for ADALB Complaint Procedures” (available online at bit.ly/ADALBguidelines).
Seems pretty straightforward, but because the complaint guidelines offer multiple options for how a complaint might proceed, it is often difficult to ascertain a specific complaint’s path through the process. Following the convoluted process around each twist and bend (recordings of meetings, agendas and meeting minutes) is enough to strike even the soundest mind with a bout of delirium while tracking complaints that have been tabled, revisited for subsequent hearings and even instances of dismissed complaints reappearing on subsequent agendas only to be dismissed again!
A closer look at the 234 complaints that reached the Board’s notice between March 15, 2022 and January 21, 2025 presents an even more concerning trend: many of those preliminary reviews seem to be given nothing more than lip service. And when a motion to move forward to the “next step” passes (as rare as that may be), things get even more squirrelly.
By the time the Board started their reviews, three complaints were withdrawn. Five tabled complaints – three from back in October 2022 – appear to still be pending a preliminary review. Thus, it appears that the preliminary administrative review process has been completed on 226 written complaints; of those, 188 (83 percent) were dismissed, and 38 (17 percent) moved forward.
The aforementioned guidelines allow for dismissals “due to lack of jurisdiction, based on frivolous allegations, lack of sufficient evidence, lack of legal merit or factual basis, finding of no violation, withdrawal of a complaint, subsequent compliance with statutes and/or regulations or other basis” [emphasis added], yet many of the complaints that were dismissed included documentation illustrating violations of 212 CMR 2.00 et seq or Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 26 Section 8G (MGL c. 26 § 8G).
Although the ADALB officially shares the DOI’s supposed mission of protecting consumer interests and is specifically charged with “adopt[ing] rules and regulations governing licenses under this section in order to promote the public welfare and safety,” as expressed in MGL c. 26 § 8G), the Board’s actions often speak volumes louder than those written words. But plenty of spoken words were pretty loud as well – particularly some of the discussions that indicated certain perplexity around pretty important concepts in the world of appraisals.
It may be helpful if the entire Board understood what constitutes a complaint. In October 2024, Board member Peter Smith (MAPFRE) claimed, “When information is brought to the Board alleging a violation or impropriety, it’s just information until the Board decides it is a complaint. So, I don’t see why there should be any further discussion about that information, other than that it’s just information. The Board decides when it’s a complaint.”
AASP/MA Executive Director Lucky Papageorg rebuffed that
continued on pg. 28
BMW of West Springfield 1712 Riverdale St.
West Springfield, MA 01089
PH: 413-746-1722
FAX: 413-304-9009
bmwwestspringfield.com
New Country BMW
1 Weston Park Ave.
Hartford, CT 06120
PH: 860-240-7881
FAX: 860-240-7873
newcountrybmw.com
BMW of Stratham 71 Portsmouth Avenue
Stratham, NH 03885
PH: 603-772-0000
FAX: 603-772-9436
bmwofstratham.com
BMW of Warwick 1515 Bald Hill Rd.
Warwick, RI 02886
PH: 401-821-1510
FAX: 401-823-0530
bmwofwarwick.com
Audi dealers strive to make you an Audi Genuine Parts fan
• Audi Parts professionals are your subject matter experts on collision parts, replacement components and mechanical items.
• Many Audi dealers offer technical service support hotline access that can reduce your repair times and help you meet an on-time promised delivery.
• Installing Audi Genuine Parts contributes toward improved cycle time that helps make both your customer and their insurance company happier.
• Regardless of the age of your customer’s Audi, Audi dealers have access to over 200,000 part numbers. No other supplier comes close.
Helping you do business is our business. Order Audi Genuine Parts from these select dealers.
Audi Natick
549 Worcester Street
Natick, MA 01760
www.bernardiaudi.com
800.247.3033
Fax: 508.651.6841
Hoffman Audi
700 Connecticut Blvd
East Hartford, CT 06108
860.282.0191
Fax: 860.290.6355 www.hoffmanauto.com
Audi Peabody 252 Andover Street Peabody, MA 01960
800.774.8411
Parts Direct: 978.605.2182 email: pwalke@iramotorgroup.com www.audipeabody.com
Mattie Audi 80 William S. Canning Blvd. Fall River, MA 02721
800.678.0914
Fax: 508.730.1283 www.mattieaudi.com
statement: “When someone files a complaint, you have a complaint. All you’re doing is deciding whether or not the complaint has the merit to proceed.”
Multiple complaints demonstrate a failure to negotiate, despite the need to negotiate being mentioned multiple times in the CMR. During the review of Complaint 2024-26, Smith indicated that the appraiser’s refusal to pay the amount requested by the shop did not constitute a failure to negotiate, to which Board member Bill Johnson (Pleasant Street Auto; South Hadley/Belchertown) objected, that “Nope, I’m not paying for that” is not a negotiation.
“When you negotiate, you need to provide a reason for drawing a line in the sand,” Johnson had explained at a previous meeting, and then-Board member Rick Starbard (Rick’s Auto Collision; Revere) agreed. “Appraisers arbitrarily deny procedures, but we give them carte blanche to do what they want.”
Smith sought to do exactly that on multiple occasions. “I conducted an initial review of these complaints, and what I found common throughout is that they, for the most part, involved a monetary dispute between the insurer’s appraiser and the shop’s appraiser,” Smith sought to unilaterally dismiss the 35 complaints on the July 2022 agenda. “I don’t think it’s in the Board’s purview to be getting involved in monetary disputes between appraisers.”
“Isn’t every complaint – whether it’s related to a procedure, hours or parts – a monetary dispute in some way?” Johnson countered, pushing the ADALB to review each complaint individually, pleading his case by stressing, “This is all about safety. We’re here for the consumers. It’s not a shop versus an insurance company. We’re here for the consumers, and we need to get that through our heads. That needs to be the focus here.”
Starbard agreed. “This is flat out dangerous! We’re trading bodies for profits. Vehicles today are not what they were in the 1970s, but this Board still wants to act like they are.”
However, their pleas repeatedly went unheeded, and Smith’s persistence succeeded in December 2023 when he sought to summarily dismiss the 83 of the 84 complaints scheduled for review because they were filed by one individual, involved the same respondent and “seem to be retaliatory in nature.” He claimed the complaints lacked appropriate supporting documentation and even some critical pieces of information. Despite protests from the auto body representatives on the Board, the motion to dismiss those 83 complaints passed.
During the Board’s preliminary reviews of those 226 complaints, this divide between the ADALB’s insurers and auto body professionals has become perfunctory. Only 13 dismissals resulted from unanimous decisions, while another four were dismissed when an auto body representative took the same position as the insurance representatives; altogether, that accounts for just nine percent of the preliminary dismissals. What about the other
91 percent? Let’s return to that after an examination of the complaints that moved forward in the process.
Nine of the 34 complaints to move forward received unanimous votes, though Complaint 2023-1 only received a unanimous vote because both insurers were forced to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. Former Board member Samantha Tracy (Arbella Insurance) voted in line with the repairers – and against the Board’s other insurer – on 16 of these complaints; Smith did it once.
It’s possible that some of the reluctance to “move forward” stems from a failure to understand exactly what that means. In February 2023, Attorney Michael Powers clarified the matter: “Under the complaint procedures, when it says ‘move to the next step,’ you have two possible steps. One is to notify the appraiser with a copy of the complaint and request that they send a written response which waives their appearance before the Board. Number two is you just notify the appraiser to appear before the Board.”
Still, as recently as the January 2025 meeting, confusion appears to linger as Smith hedged on voting to move forward by expressing a desire to “get the other side of the story.” Johnson clarified, “That’s what moving forward means. We notify the employee and ask questions to get the other side of the story.” Later during the same meeting, that explanation had to be reiterated as Smith urged the Board, “Let’s not jump to conclusions,” a somewhat ironic utterance given his voting history.
Although the remaining 12 passed motions moved forward thanks to Chairman Michael Donovan casting a tie-breaking vote in the repairers’ favor, several of his acquiescences were questionable. On Complaint 2022-11, both insurers had abstained, so Donovan’s negative vote would have carried no weight, and during the January 2023 meeting, Donovan’s vote to move forward on Complaint 2022-70 appeared to result from his perplexity as Johnson and Starbard employed the tactic of making a motion to dismiss the complaint, only to vote against their own motions.
Donovan’s vote to move forward on 2024-21 appeared to be reactionary. Earlier in the meeting, he had voted to dismiss 202414 which involved the same carrier and the same issue (a delay in completing the supplement); however, the final vote during the meeting when these were reviewed occurred after Donovan engaged in a heated debate with Johnson and Board member Carl Garcia (Carl’s Collision Center; Fall River). Due to the ADALB’s insurance representatives repeatedly ignoring regulatory violations and insisting that the resulting short pays could be resolved through arbitration, the repairers indicated using arbitration would force shops to bill the difference to the vehicle owner upon completion of the repairs. Donovan took exception to that solution, stating “We’re here to protect the consumer.”
“We’re not doing a great job,” Garcia pointed out that
arbitration would penalize consumers since vehicle owners would then be responsible for the difference that insurers refused to pay. Johnson highlighted the truth of that statement by reminding the chairman, “You just voted against moving forward with a complaint where the consumer paid $678.45 to get their vehicle out of the shop [on 2024-14].” Subsequently, Donovan voted in line with Johnson and Garcia to move forward on Complaint 2024-21.
Seeing as how MGL c. 26 § 8G indicates the commissionerappointed ADALB chairman “shall not be affiliated with either the auto body industry or the insurance industry,” it’s pretty clear that Donovan is not doing a great job since his voting record clearly indicates a bias toward a certain side of the table. Remember the 91 percent of dismissals that have not yet been analyzed? Yep, you guessed it – those 171 complaints were dismissed as a result of Donovan’s intervention.
Nearly every time insurers were forced to recuse themselves from voting, resulting in a two-to-one, Donovan cast a vote in line with the other insurance representative to create a tie, declaring the complaint failed to move forward. Interestingly, a tie only appears to prevent a motion from passing when it relates to moving forward with a complaint; when a motion to table Complaint 2022-12 yielded votes of yay from Starbard and Johnson but nay from Tracy and Donovan (Smith abstained), the motion was declared to pass.
And time after time, tied votes went in favor of the insurers… whether that was accomplished by Donovan explicitly casting a vote or by him merely declaring that the motion to move forward had failed. Johnson observed this on one occasion and asked, “When it’s a tie vote and it fails, is this your de facto ‘no’ every time? I think it’s important that you go on record as to what your feelings are with this. If you’re not voting, it’s a ‘no’ I guess because you’re making the motion fail.”
On another occasion, when Donovan questioned the repairers’ tactic of voting against their own motions, Johnson explained, “We’re trying to get you to be on record. When Rick or I make a motion to move a complaint forward and there is a two-to-two vote, you’re silent; you don’t break the tie. The only way you break the tie is if we make a motion to dismiss and vote against our own motion, so that puts you on record. If you feel strongly about this, what’s the problem with being on record and being transparent?”
But one thing is pretty transparent. Papageorg summed it up best during the August 2022 ADALB meeting when he observed, “The bias being presented here by this Board is about the only thing that’s transparent with the ADALB.”
Starbard agreed. “I don’t think a vote is ever taken at the ADALB that is unbiased on the insurers’ side.”
Preliminary review of these complaints resulted in 183 ties; Donovan’s vote moved the needle in the insurers’ direction 93.4 percent of the time. But examination of the complaints that moved
forward shows an even clearer tendency to align with the insurance representatives.
Of the 38 complaints that moved forward, public records reveal the results of the ADALB’s subsequent consideration for 30 of them. (The January 2024 meeting agenda indicated that Complaint 2023-1 would be revisited during executive session, but the meeting minutes did not mention the Board’s decision. Complaint 2024-2 was scheduled to be heard during January’s executive session, but the minutes were not available at the time of writing).
Two complaints were tabled, and three moved forward to the next step. The Board voted unanimously on one, while two required Donovan to break the tie in line with the repairers in order to move forward; however, “moving forward” often amounts to nothing.
For example, Complaint 2022-50, which alleged a failure to negotiate for adequate costs to pay for the materials and labor required on a three-stage coating, received a vote to move forward with requesting additional information during its first review in July 2022. Upon second review during executive session in March 2023, Donovan cast a tie-breaking vote in favor of the repairers’ motion to move forward to a formal hearing, which took place in May 2023’s executive session. In response to a request to dismiss by the appraiser’s attorney, Smith made a motion to dismiss. And although the meeting minutes reflect it was “dismissed by a vote of three-to-two with Board members Johnson and Starbard voting no and Chairman Donovan abstaining,” a three-to-two vote is not possible without the chairman’s vote, making it clear as mud that his de facto vote favored dismissal…and possibly raising questions as to the accuracy of these minutes.
In contrast, 25 were dismissed during the secondary review, with only six of those dismissals resulting from a unanimous decision or dissension between the auto body representatives. Donovan agreed to the dismissals 19 times – either to break a tie or to create one in favor of the insurers.
At this point, 205 opportunities arose where Donovan has had the opportunity to cast a vote that would influence the path a complaint took…and 93 percent of the time, he chose to align himself with the insurance representatives seated at the table.
“WHY?” one might ask.
But the most recurring trend in Donovan’s commentary throughout the review of complaints has pertained to the monetary aspect of the dispute. “Many of these complaints relate to disputes over reimbursement for repairs, and some of them are a very minor amount of money,” he pointed out in July 2022. He repeatedly questioned the Board about the difference between what shops requested and what insurers agreed to pay, despite reminders that the complaints were filed as a result of a failure in the process, not because of the pecuniary amount related to that failure.
Before voting with Smith and Ye to summarily dismiss the 83 complaints in December 2023, Donovan objected to spending another year “sitting around, dealing with a $20 bill related to the return of an item.” His objections to spending time reviewing complaints based on the small amount of money being contested have been voiced at nearly every meeting where these reviews took place.
Although Donovan is correct in his insistence that the ADALB’s job is NOT to address monetary disputes, “Every complaint is a monetary dispute,” as Johnson has repeatedly expressed. This is acknowledged repeatedly throughout the regulation, which includes the word “cost” 17 times, including in the definition of “appraiser;’ 212 CMR 2.04(e) explicitly states, “The appraisers representing the insurance company and the registered repair shop selected by the insured to do the repair shall attempt to agree on the estimated cost for such repairs.”
The Board is NOT responsible for determining the amount that should be paid when a complaint is filed – but they ARE charged with investigating whether those monetary disputes were caused by an appraiser violating the regulations, such as by causing delays with supplemental paperwork or refusing to negotiate the true cost of repairs as determined by the shop’s actual expenses and documentation (not based on the insurer’s initial “guesstimate”).
Attorney Powers seems to have similar reservations about complaints that mention monetary amounts, as indicated during the review of Complaint 2024-23 when he suggested the complaint was irrelevant since the consumer had already compensated the shop for the amount the insurer neglected to pay. “So, if an appraiser doesn’t pay properly for a repair car or does not negotiate properly, and I back charge the customer and get the money, that means the appraiser did not break the law?” Johnson countered. “You’re saying I didn’t break the CMR because I got all of my money? Getting paid doesn’t negate the fact that the appraiser shouldn’t have done what he did.”
Donovan also took exception to the number of complaints filed by an individual shop owner in 2022, complaining multiple times during the ADALB’s review. “Have you ever had this number of complaints from a single person in your tenure?” he posed to Attorney Powers at one point, and when Powers agreed that the volume was highly unusual, Donovan suggested that there may be “an agenda” and expressed bewilderment that “this particular repairer has so much difficulty.”
Further evidence of Donovan’s lack of understanding about the relationships between repairers and insurers, as well as the roles both industries play in the repair process, occurred in December 2023 when he acknowledged, “I don’t understand, frankly, the difference between what Ms. Ye does and what you [Johnson and Garcia] all do.”
“I’m not dependent upon any insurance company to send me any work,” Johnson tried to explain color to the blind as he inferred that it could possibly be detrimental to Ye’s livelihood if an insurer dislikes how she votes on certain issues. “An insurance agent is dependent upon that insurance company for a book of business. The insurance company can shed an agent anytime they want. That’s the difference.”
The Board chair also seems confused about the ADALB’s responsibilities. When Starbard expressed his belief that any appraiser’s license should be suspended or revoked due to “serious misconduct,” Donovan appeared appalled at the suggestion of impacting someone’s livelihood by revoking their license. Yet, at a subsequent meeting, Donovan showed no reservation in revoking a shop owner’s appraisal license. “Unfortunately, sometimes we have to do that, so I am going to vote yes to revoke the license.”
This raises the question: What’s the difference (in Donovan’s mind) between revoking an insurance appraiser’s license versus a shop owner’s appraisal license?
“Insurance appraisers need to actually believe the ADALB might take their license away for violating the regulations!” Starbard vented his frustrations during an interview with New England Automotive Report last year. “I’ve had appraisers dare me to report them to the Board because they know nothing will happen. There needs to be a threat of losing their license or financial penalties or something. As it stands now, they know they can do whatever they want, and nothing will happen.”
But maybe that’s what certain members of the ADALB want –for nothing to happen. Meetings of the ADALB often devolve into utter pandemonium, and while the reasoning behind their actions often appears impenetrable, one thing emerges as crystal clear: the Board does not act from a disinterested standpoint. Their bias toward certain interests demonstrates the obvious conflict of interest inherent in allowing insurers to govern insurance companies’ behaviors. It’s enough to drive anyone mad.
*For the sake of simplicity – and to prevent readers from ramming their heads into a wall – a “dismissed” complaint refers to both those for which a motion to dismiss passed AND those for which a motion to move forward failed since the end result is the same. This matter was confirmed by Attorney Michael Powers during the Board’s January 2023 meeting when he stated, “Anytime the Board fails to move forward with a complaint, the Board’s past practice has been to dismiss it. We need an affirmative vote to move forward with the complaint, a majority vote.”
The True Cost of Aftermarket Parts: Why Insurers’ Short-Sighted Cost Cutting is Costing Everyone More
Insurance companies insist that their use of aftermarket (AM) parts is about cost savings, but the reality is far more complex – and far more costly. Every day, insurers direct repair shops to install AM parts, claiming that these components meet the legal standard of “like kind and quality” (LKQ) as required under 211 CMR 133. But this standard, as applied, is grossly problematic. Vehicles are engineered as a complete system, with every single part – down to the ounce – playing a role in how that vehicle performs in everyday driving and, more critically, in a collision. A part that differs in material composition, weight or structure – no matter how slightly – was not part of the manufacturer’s design for crash performance. That means that even if a replacement AM part bolts into place, it has already failed to meet the definition of LKQ because it was never tested in the original system it is replacing.
Beyond the fundamental engineering concerns, there is also the issue of true cost. Insurers insist that AM parts represent the “lowest overall repair cost,” but this definition is skewed in their favor. They consider only the immediate cost of the part itself, while ignoring a host of real-world expenses: rental car costs
when the wrong part is shipped, additional labor required to make an AM part fit, supplements when a non-OEM part fails and even the long-term impact on vehicle value. In some cases, OEM parts are price-matched to AM parts, eliminating any cost savings insurers claim. And even when they are not, the savings disappear quickly when considering delays, additional work and the safety risks associated with AM parts.
This article takes a deep dive into the real costs of AM parts – not just to vehicle owners, but to repair shops, insurers and the public at large. It examines why the insurer-driven AM parts mandate is flawed, how Massachusetts law already supports the use of OEM parts more than insurers acknowledge and what consumers and repairers can do when faced with a demand to use parts that compromise safety, value and accountability. The bottom line? Insurers’ push for AM parts does not save money – it merely shifts costs onto consumers, repair shops and future accidents.
The Financial Myth of Aftermarket Parts AM Parts Are Not Always Cheaper
Insurers justify the use of AM parts primarily on the basis of the part cost savings, but in many cases, those savings are an illusion. While AM parts often carry a lower sticker price than their OEM counterparts, the actual cost of using them in repairs is often equal to or greater than using OEM parts. Price-matching programs offered by OEMs frequently bring the cost of an original part in line with its aftermarket substitute, eliminating any price advantage insurers claim. Even when AM parts do cost less upfront, they frequently require additional modifications to fit properly, increasing labor time and pushing up the total cost of repair. Freight and handling charges can also add up, especially when shops receive incorrect or defective AM parts and must reorder, leading to supplemental appraisals and repair delays.
Delays Lead to Additional Costs
Time is money in the collision repair world, and every delay adds costs that insurers fail to consider. When an AM part arrives late or fails to fit, the repair shop must spend extra
time sourcing a replacement, while the vehicle owner racks up additional rental car expenses. These costs directly impact the total repair cost, even though insurers rarely factor them into their calculations.
Furthermore, repair shops that attempt to comply with insurer-mandated AM part use often find themselves in a nowin situation. When a defective part is returned to a supplier for a refund or exchange, the shop risks being blackballed by AM suppliers, cutting off their access to certain parts. In Massachusetts, the Auto Damage Appraiser Licensing Board (ADALB) has ruled that parts that are “unavailable” cannot be required under the regulations – but that does not stop insurers from continuing to push AM options, even when they are logistically impractical. And they are fully aware that the chosen shop has been “black balled” in the past.
The Legal and Market Implications of AM Parts Insurers Deduct for “Betterment,” But What About
continued on pg.
continued from pg. 35
Devaluation?
Insurers routinely deduct payments to claimants under the concept of betterment, arguing that if a new part makes a vehicle “better” than before, the claimant should pay the difference. This practice applies in cases like new tires or batteries replacing worn-out ones, effectively reducing the insurer’s payout. But what happens when a vehicle is made worse due to the installation of AM parts?
When AM parts are used in place of OEM parts, the vehicle loses market value – a reality that insurers conveniently ignore. If a third-party claim is involved (where another driver was at fault), the at-fault party should be liable for the additional diminished value caused by the use of non-OEM components. In first-party claims (where a policyholder seeks coverage from their own insurer), the insurer is actively reducing the value of the insured’s vehicle – without any compensation for the loss. This double standard is indefensible.
The Hidden Liability of AM Parts
Beyond financial concerns, the use of AM parts introduces a serious liability question: who is responsible when these parts fail? Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) design vehicles as integrated safety systems, where every part is tested and engineered to perform in a crash. When an insurer mandates an AM substitute, they are changing the way the vehicle will perform in a future accident – but who is accountable if that change results in injury or death?
Insurers frequently advertise that they “guarantee” repairs performed at their preferred repair shops, but Coverall Law reviewed 14 different Massachusetts insurer-referral contracts, and every single one placed liability back on the shop – not the insurer. This means that if an AM part fails, the repair shop is left holding the bag, even though the insurer mandated its use in the first place. While one can hope that an insurance carrier may be held at least partially liable since they are directly choosing the parts to be used; just like in the John Eagle case, the buck stops with the shop.
The Quality and Safety Problem of Aftermarket Parts AM Parts Are Not Always “Like, Kind, and Quality”
The legal standard in Massachusetts requires that AM parts be LKQ to OEM parts, but in practice, this standard is widely misapplied. Many AM parts arrive with incorrect fitment, forcing some repairers to not “rock the boat” when they feel they have no choice but to drill new bolt holes or modify components just to make them work. Other parts have weight differences that may seem minor but can drastically alter crash dynamics. Material quality varies widely, with some AM parts
using cheaper plastics, inferior metals or lower-quality adhesives that do not meet OEM performance standards.
The biggest procedural issue is that insurers insist that a part is fit for use unless both the insurer and the repairer agree that it is unfit. This is problematic because insurers are already often delayed in viewing supplement requests, leaving shops in limbo while waiting for an insurance appraiser to confirm what they already know: the AM part does not meet LKQ standards. If an OEM part had been ordered from the outset, the repair process would be smoother, quicker and safer. Further exacerbating this issue is multiple shops showing the exact same part to the exact same insurer as unfit for use, and insurers continuing to dictate on list price alone. The insurers have no system in place to track the insufficient parts they have already failed in pushing onto the shops.
OEM Parts Come with Built-in Safety and Recall Protections
One of the most overlooked issues with AM parts is tracking and accountability. When an OEM part is used, the manufacturer is legally responsible for recalls, warranty claims and performance failures. In contrast, AM parts lack any structured tracking system, making it nearly impossible to recall a faulty component once it is installed in a repaired vehicle.
Groups like the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) send out monthly notices of AM parts that have been decertified, meaning they no longer meet even the minimum standards for quality. However, there is no established system for tracking and replacing these faulty AM parts once they have been installed. This means that vehicles with decertified parts are allowed to remain on the road, putting both drivers and the public at risk.
Insurers Ignore Future Liability
The issue of AM part liability extends beyond immediate repairs – it impacts how a vehicle will perform in future collisions. As Managing Attorney, I recently debated this point with an insurer’s appraiser over a frame sub-panel repair. The appraiser proposed attempting a repair first before approving a full replacement. But the question was simple.
“Even if you make the damaged piece work, will this vehicle perform the same in a subsequent collision?”
The shop owner was taken aback, the insurer appraiser could not answer. The truth is that insurers rarely consider follow-on liability, because their sole focus is immediate cost savings – even when that decision may put lives at risk in future accidents. (And Yes, John Eagle is a perfect example.)
What “Lowest Overall Repair Cost” Must Mean
Under 211 CMR 133.04(1)(c), OEM parts can and
should be used if they result in the “lowest overall repair cost.” However, insurers interpret this phrase narrowly, considering only immediate part cost rather than the true economic impact of their decisions.
A proper interpretation must include:
• Rental and delay costs when AM parts cause supply chain disruptions.
• Supplement/rework costs when AM parts arrive defective, requiring additional labor.
• Vehicle devaluation due to non-OEM components, which impacts resale and insurance value.
• Long-term liability risks – because a poorly repaired car today could lead to lawsuits tomorrow.
Insurers fail to see past the immediate cost savings, but reality tells a different story:
• Delays cost more.
• Re-repairs cost more.
• Lawsuits cost more.
• Unsafe repairs put consumers at risk.
The goal of 211 CMR 133 is to ensure safe and fair vehicle repairs – not to let insurers cut corners at the expense of safety, quality and accountability. If insurers continue misapplying these regulations, it is up to repairers, consumers and the legal system to hold them accountable.
What Consumers and Repair Shops Can Do For Vehicle Owners
When an insurer mandates the use of AM parts in your repair, you do not have to accept it without question. The law requires that replacement parts be LKQ to the original components – but as we have seen, many AM parts do not meet this standard.
Here’s what you can do as a vehicle owner:
• Know your rights – Massachusetts regulations allow for the use of OEM parts if they result in the lowest overall repair cost. If an AM part will cause delays, require additional labor or diminish the resale value of your vehicle, demand an OEM replacement.
• Document everything – If an insurer insists on an AM part, ask them to provide written documentation that the part is truly LKQ. If the part is incorrect, defective or delayed, keep records of all communications and costs –this could be useful in diminished value claims or future legal action.
• Challenge vehicle devaluation – If AM parts are used, your vehicle will likely be worth less on resale. If another driver was at fault for your accident, you may be entitled to diminished value compensation. If you are making a claim under your own policy, you should demand an adjustment to reflect the loss in vehicle value.
• Consult an attorney if needed – If an insurer refuses to acknowledge the long-term costs of AM parts, legal action may be necessary. A well-documented claim can challenge improper insurer practices and force them to adhere to the true meaning of LKQ and the lowest overall repair cost standard.
For Repair Shops
Repair shops find themselves caught in the middle of insurer-mandated AM parts policies and the need to ensure safe, high-quality repairs. To protect both your business and your customers, consider the following strategies:
• Push back against bad AM parts – If an AM part does not fit properly, requires modifications or does not match OEM specifications, document the issue immediately. Do not allow an insurer to pressure you into using a part that is not truly LKQ.
• Demand insurer accountability – Insurers should be responsible for additional costs caused by defective AM parts. If an AM part causes delays, extra labor or requires reordering, insist that the insurer cover all associated costs.
• Use ADALB rulings to your advantage – The ADALB has ruled that if an AM part is unavailable (even if solely because the supplier will not sell to your shop), the part cannot be required under Massachusetts regulations. If an AM supplier refuses to sell to your shop (due to prior returns of defective parts), use this ruling to justify OEM replacement.
• Educate customers about their rights – Many consumers do not realize that insurers cannot force them to accept AM parts. Shops that educate customers about OEM part advantages and legal protections build trust and reinforce the importance of safe, high-quality repairs.
Conclusion
Massachusetts law is clear: repairs must be performed using LKQ parts, and the lowest overall repair cost must take all factors into account. However, insurers have consistently interpreted these regulations to their own financial advantage, prioritizing short-term savings over long-term safety, quality and vehicle value.
The fundamental problem is that AM parts are rarely true
LKQ replacements. Even a part difference of a few ounces in weight can alter how a vehicle performs in a collision. Yet insurers routinely demand AM parts without any regard for crash safety, resale value or long-term liability risks. They also ignore the hidden costs of AM part use – delays, rental expenses, rework costs and additional labor – all of which negate any claimed savings.
Meanwhile, repair shops and vehicle owners bear the
burden. Shops are forced to navigate insurer pressure, supplier blacklisting and accountability loopholes, while consumers are left with devalued vehicles and potential safety hazards. If insurers are allowed to continue this short-sighted cost-cutting, the consequences will only grow worse. Vehicle owners, repair shops and industry advocates must push back – by demanding accountability, challenging improper part specifications and ensuring that the real meaning of LKQ and “lowest overall repair cost” is upheld. If insurers refuse to see beyond their immediate cost savings, then it is up to the legal system and industry professionals to hold them accountable.
Coverall Law Managing Attorney Sean Preston finished in the top of his law school class at the historic Howard University School of Law in Washington, DC after serving in the United States Army. He went on to excel in business and legal strategy, serving some of the world's most recognizable brands in neighboring industries. Sean recently returned from Berlin, Germany with his family (where he served in Rolls-Royce's General Counsel function) and today resides in Wareham, MA, where he helps to oversee and meaningfully lead efforts in the region for Coverall Law. He can be reached at (508) 635-5329 or via email at spreston@coveralllaw.com
Here’s to 241 years of combined service excellence
This year, as Albert Kemperle Inc. celebrates its 83rd anniversary, BASF also celebrates its 158th anniversary. We are proud of our decades of partnership with BASF and years of serving the auto paint and body industry together. Kemperle’s founders would be proud of this relationship and the growth their company has experienced because of it.
Today, as we look forward to many more decades of service to our customers, we find ourselves filled with gratitude. The creativity, hard work, and sense of responsibility of the people working for our two companies have made us what we are today.
We are excited to offer this course from the perspective of collision repairers, without bias, to explain the “why” behind the regulations and why they are written the way they are. It’s important to understand that the licensed MVDA plays an integral role in the repair process and carries significant responsibilities. The “estimate of record’ is a crucial document, signed “under the pains and penalties of perjury.” This is not a responsibility to be taken lightly. The license that students earn is their own, and they must adhere to the rules to maintain that privilege.
We look forward to expanding the course to additional locations across the state, reaching more individuals interested in becoming licensed MVDAs. This is an important course for anyone in the collision repair industry, whether or not they aspire to become licensed. Everyone – from the front office to the detailing bay – should understand what goes into the estimating and repair process and why. Having the entire staff understand the rules and the potential liabilities of improper damage assessments and repairs should be a priority for every shop owner.
If you are a shop owner interested in becoming a host location or a potential instructor, please contact me directly. We already have a waiting list of interested individuals from across the state. We are off and running! This is not a one-time event; we aim to be at the forefront of training the next generation of licensed MVDAs who will serve consumers in the collision repair process.
