For most consumers, auto body shops are intimidating and mysterious. The good ones restore your beloved car to gleaming perfection. The bad ones hide problems and stick you with a big repair bill.

We talked with three veterans of the auto body industry, two of whom (Brian and Neal) run their own collision repair businesses and the third expert (Andy) who is a well-connected industry observer. Our sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, shed light on this shadowy world and offer suggestions on how to manage costs, avoid rip-offs and ensure that sure your car is fixed right.

Know That Body Shops Run the Quality Gamut
“I don’t care what state you live in, for every 10 body shops, three of them are unethical and five of them do mediocre work at best,” Neal says.

It’s clear that finding the right shop and building a relationship with the owner or manager is an essential first step in the repair process. There will always be fly-by-night shops, and even mobile dent-repair guys working out of the trunks of their cars. Consumers should look for brick-and-mortar body shops that have been in business a long time and have a solid track record of satisfied customers.

Most body shops are family-owned or second-generation businesses, says Brian.

And it’s a tough business these days. After getting a high bill for collision repair, some people might think that body shops make a lot of money. Neal laughs at this. “At one time body work was lucrative. But today, the well-run shops are realizing profits of 4-7 percent. And it’s a very fine line between making 4 percent and losing 5 percent.”

In an environment like this, shops rely on good word-of-mouth referrals to attract customers. “The last thing we want is a bad reputation or reports of poor customer service,” Brian says. “We want to fix it right and make that customer happy.” (For more about choosing the right shop, see “5 Tips for Choosing the Right Auto Body Shop.”)

Once you find the right shop, the process of getting your car fixed right at the right price starts with getting an accurate, reasonable estimate.

Understand Your Estimate
Price quotes from different body shops seem to vary wildly, and this shouldn’t be the case.

Our three experts remind us that collision-repair facilities and insurance companies use one of three systems for estimating repair jobs to arrive at standardized, impartial quotes. Theoretically, this means three different shops will present similar estimates. But insurance companies will sometimes present their policyholders with a low quote that bears no relationship to the product of these estimating systems, Brian says. And if the consumer decides he can live with minor body damage and elects to pocket the check rather than pay to have the damage repaired, the carrier has quickly cleared another claim.

It’s increasingly tough for body shop owners to provide an accurate cost estimate that will cover the expense to fix the car properly and still make a profit. Brian says automakers frequently change vehicle designs as the Environmental Protection Agency raises fuel-efficiency standards. They are increasingly using lighter materials like aluminum and high-strength metals like ultra-hard boron steel, particularly in the frame and suspension parts. Such parts are expensive.

Body shops are supposed to restore cars to the standards of the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), but they know from experience that doing so is going to be prohibitively expensive. Instead, they don’t even consult the manufacturer’s specifications and fix the car according to time-tested methods. Those methods might not fix the car safely or completely.

“So all of a sudden the lowest common denominator — the insurance company’s quote — becomes the benchmark,” Brian says. And the shop with the lowest cost is likely the one the consumer will pick.

Neal adds that there is another factor that makes the process difficult for consumers. “One guy might have a different definition of what a fair profit is from the next guy for procedures that are identical between the two shops.” This is the dreaded gray area in evaluating cost estimates and it can hit your wallet hard. Here’s how it works.

Get an Estimate Breakdown
There are judgment calls in auto body work that can lead to huge swings in price quotes, our experts report.

Neal gives an example: Say you have a dent in your quarter panel. One shop might write a simple four-line estimate to repair the panel and repaint it. (Each line on the quote constitutes another charge.) Another shop might write a 20-line estimate that includes removing the taillight and bumper, instead of just taping them off. “There can be 20 steps for the repair if you want to do them all and if you want to charge for them all,” he says.

If a consumer doesn’t understand the steps, the estimate makes little sense. And many body shops don’t take the time to explain it, Brian adds. “There are a lot of shops that print their estimate, throw it at the consumer and say ‘Call me if you want me to do it,’” he says. Instead, he recommends looking for the shop with a staff that listens patiently and replies with reasonable answers.

Andy says consumers should be aware that some shops write lowball estimates just to “seize the keys” — get the car owner’s commitment to do the job. Once the car is dismantled, the body shop owner calls the consumer and lists additional charges, claiming that the shop discovered new damage after it started work.

Additional charges do occur because, “you can’t see through a car without taking it apart,” Andy says. Avoid this ploy by choosing a highly regarded body shop in the first place and making sure to the best of your ability that the estimate covers all the work required.

Turn Down the “Save the Deductible” Come-on
Andy warns that some shops will offer to help consumers “save the deductible” from their insurance claim — typically about $500. The shop is basically offering to scam the insurance company for the consumer by not collecting the deductible payment.

But Andy says that what such a shop is really intending to do is to either not perform necessary work, or overcharge for something to compensate for the waived deductible. “Collision repair shops are businesses, and like any business, can’t afford to not charge for work that is being performed,” Andy tells us. “If a shop says they can waive the deductible…that is something for consumers to be cautious of.”

Ask About the Parts
Our insiders say some unethical shop owners will try to boost profits by charging customers for new OEM parts when they’ve actually installed used ones, or have substituted aftermarket parts for OEM parts without telling the customer. In other cases, they repair the original part, reuse it in the vehicle and charge the customer for a new part.

It’s difficult for unwary consumers to protect themselves against these scams. However, they can ask to review the original quote and request documentation of the parts the shop used in repairing their vehicle. In most states, repair facilities are required by law to disclose in their estimates that they intend to use non-OEM parts. If you live in one of the states that doesn’t require disclosure, it’s even more important to ask.

Consumers also have to be alert to the terminology that shops and insurance companies use when they’re describing parts. Our experts talked about “imitation” parts, using the term to refer to parts that are made by aftermarket suppliers. The aftermarket industry says its products are built to industry standards and are as good as those produced by the OEMs. Your decision on which to use likely depends on the age of your car, the size of your wallet and the terms of your insurance policy. In any case, make sure you get your body shop to define its terms. Will it use OEM parts? Aftermarket? New? Used? Will it repair and reuse a part from your car?

Neal says that aftermarket parts have their place and consumers shouldn’t always be hesitant to approve their use.

“If you came to me with a damaged year-old vehicle, I wouldn’t even suggest an imitation part because it doesn’t belong on a vehicle that we’re trying to protect the value of,” Neal says. “But if you came to me with your daughter’s eight-year-old transportation car, we would price it both ways.” There would be a small risk in lowering the resale value of the car in exchange for the savings.

For more on this subject, please see “How To Tell if Your Body Shop Did the Job Correctly.”

Beware of Shops in Cahoots With Adjusters
Insurance work is the lifeblood of the auto body business. Nearly 85 percent of the work for most collision repair facilities comes from claims, according to the insiders we interviewed. Brian says that he knows of many shop owners who attempt to ingratiate themselves with insurance adjusters by detailing — or even painting — their personal vehicles for free. “We know of it happening all the time,” he says.

(For the insurance industry’s side of the story, see “Confessions of an Auto Claims Adjuster.”)

This unethical relationship puts the consumer at a disadvantage, Neal says. “Your repair shop is supposed to act as your advocate,” he says. “If your insurer wants to put an aftermarket part on a vehicle that’s six months old without your permission, the shop should tell you so: ‘Mr. Jones, I have to let you know that your insurer is playing games.’” There are consequences for that, though, as Neal notes. “But if you do that they’ll take you off the list — that’s the dirty reality,” he says.

Once again, your best defense is a good offense. Only work with shops that have a track record of dealing fairly and honestly with their customers.

Don’t Get Pushed to “Preferred” Auto Body Shops
When an insurance company is paying for repairs, Neal says it often tries to steer clients to its “preferred” list of body shops. Insurance companies control these collision repair facilities by promising them steady work in exchange for corner-cutting, according to the insiders we interviewed. This control may encourage some body shops to “back charge,” or build in extra costs to cover areas not covered by the insurance company. If a shop begins doing this, Neal says, “It’s a slippery slope, and when you get on that path it’s hard to get off.”

Andy says that most state laws allow consumers to choose their auto body shops, even when an insurance company is paying for the repair. But insurance adjusters will still coerce clients toward the “preferred” shops using a variety of tactics to discourage them from going elsewhere, the insiders say. For example, the adjuster might say if you go to a shop that’s not preferred, some costs won’t be covered, or the non-preferred shop won’t guarantee the work, while the preferred shop will.

In many cases, Andy has seen consumers pay out-of-pocket for repairs that the insurers said they won’t cover. Then, when the consumer files a complaint with a state’s department of insurance, the insurer is forced to pay for the repair. “Some insurance companies will put the onus on the customer to prove that they will pay for it themselves before they will agree to indemnify them for it,” he says.

All three experts agree that consumers place a lot of trust in their insurance companies to look out for their best interests. What most people don’t consider is that the insurance company is trying to cut costs to the bone while still retaining policy holders. “Consumers are at a disadvantage because they’re not knowledgeable about the services that they’re procuring,” Andy says.

Be Your Own Advocate
Sad to say, the body shop experts we spoke with say that the consumer can’t rely completely on body shops or insurance companies to watch out for their interests. You have to act as your own advocate, choose the best shop and remain alert to overcharging and misrepresentation.

“Most body shop owners are very concerned about getting good feedback and building a list of customers who’ll come back next time work is needed,” Andy says. “Find those shops, work with them, and nine times out of 10, things will go smoothly.”

Read more articles in the Edmunds Confessions Series.

See the above link on the Automotive Education and Policy Institute’s website to get educated on manufacturer’s position statements regarding parts, wheels and the replacement of other components that may be damaged in an auto accident. It’s your car and you should see that it’s repaired properly!

Jake Weyer
June 21, 2011 — If you have information on legal cases involving recovery for collision repair services, the Automotive Education & Policy Institute (AEPI) is looking for your help.

The organization is seeking those documents for a research project examining potential predatory insurance practices. The project is funded through a grant from the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers.

“Too often we hear of situations in which an insurer flatly refuses to pay reasonable rates or for activities that the professional repairer has determined to be necessary for the safe and proper repair of a customer’s vehicle,” said E.L. Eversman, founder of the AEPI. “In the current economic times, many consumers simply cannot afford to pay for those repairs themselves and take their insurers to court for reimbursement. Insurers know this and engage in what we believe are predatory practices to avoid paying a claim in full.”

That means the consumer doesn’t get a proper repair or the shop is not fully paid for all of the work performed, Eversman said.

So, the AEPI created a section on its website, autoepi.org/Legal_Cases.html, devoted to legal cases. It will be used to document the issues and inform judges, attorneys and consumers of the frequency and results of the cases. Some materials are already posted, but the AEPI is looking for tips from the community.

“Most of these decisions come from small claims matters,” Eversman said. “They don’t get reported to any of the national legal databases where they are readily accessible, but these decisions can be important and influential. We just need to know about them so the AEPI can track down the materials for posting.”

Anyone with knowledge of such lawsuits, arbitrations or appraisal hearings can contact the AEPI at autoepi@gmail.com.

The AEPI is a nonprofit organization established to help consumers understand motor vehicle safety, insurance, repair and related issues. For more information, go to autoepi.org.

An Analysis of North State Custom vs. Progressive Insurance

What North State Custom’s victory over the insurer means for the collision repair industry.

By E. L. Eversman, J.D.
6/7/2011

On Dec. 15, Greg Coccaro and North State Custom were cleared of fraud charges in the 5-1/2-year-old case that Progressive brought against the shop relating to the repair of a customer’s Mercedes-Benz. To truly understand what the jury’s verdict means to the collision repair industry, we must closely examine some of the specific allegations made and the evidence presented at trial.

Evidence

First, it’s important to note that the vehicle owner never complained about the repair. Instead, Progressive as the customer’s insurer brought the fraud lawsuit.

At trial, Progressive presented evidence that its estimates contained different parts and repair procedures than were on North State’s damage analysis and final documentation. Progressive attempted to establish that, because one of its employees had “gone over” the insurer’s initial estimate with a shop representative, the shop committed fraud by failing to adhere to its repair proposals.

Among other issues, Progressive pointed out that the shop had repaired some panels instead of replacing them, as “allowed” by the insurer on its estimate, and applied the difference in price for those parts and labor to the shop’s higher labor rate instead.

North State presented evidence that it never agreed to perform repairs according to Progressive’s estimate, there was no contract between the insurer and the shop – only between the shop and the consumer – and that the shop was liable for the propriety of the repairs. Therefore, it had to make repairs according to its own professional judgment.

Progressive argued that North State had “backed into” its dollar figure when creating its damage analysis and blueprint for repair, and that this demonstrated the shop’s fraud. Coccaro testified that North State used Progressive’s dollar figure when preparing its damage analysis and proposal for repair, as this was the amount the insurer had committed to pay to the insured. North State was then able to determine what repairs could be made to the customer’s vehicle for the designated amount of money.

North State demonstrated that it writes its own damage analyses and blueprints for repair. The shop stated that it does not “work off of,” download or otherwise incorporate an insurer’s estimate into any of its office work-product.

Good for the Industry

When the jury returned a verdict in favor of North State Custom and Greg Coccaro, finding they had not committed fraud, the entire collision industry benefited enormously. Why? Because a jury told the insurance industry that it was not fraudulent for a collision repairer to repair a vehicle according to his professional judgment – without regard to the insurer’s estimate – and accept payment for those repairs. In other words, the jury found that an insurer’s estimate is irrelevant for the purpose of determining how a vehicle will be repaired.

The jury also made it clear that it is not fraudulent for a collision repair shop to accept payment from an insurer when:

• ⁠the repairer’s damage analysis differs from the insurer’s estimate;
• when money the insurer has attributed for certain parts or procedures is allocated differently for higher labor rates or other activities by the shop;
• or even when only the bottom-line dollar amounts match.

The jury reestablished that the insurer’s estimate is nothing more than an internal document it produces to justify the payment on a property loss claim.

It’s important for the collision industry to use the momentum produced by this verdict to disassociate the repairer’s damage analysis and blueprint for repair from an insurer’s cost estimate. By never giving the insurer’s estimate any credibility as a repair blueprint, North State and Coccaro were able to clearly establish that they were in charge of the repair. Progressive was only paying the insured’s bill as per the contract of indemnification.

Labor Rate

Progressive’s direct repair document expressly states that the insurer’s estimate is not a blueprint for repair and that the DRP shop has the sole responsibility (and liability) for determining how to repair the vehicle. It has to be asked, then, how Progressive could have brought and continued this suit against Greg Coccaro and North State Custom in good faith.

Other incongruous items were also apparent. At trial, Progressive stated that it was attempting to recover the entire cost of repairs, totaling $34,091.37. However, Progressive’s expert witness, a body shop owner, testified that Progressive had already paid him $39,000, which didn’t include the days he had spent in White Plains, New York, for the trial. Simple subtraction shows that Progressive paid its expert witness more money to testify against a colleague than it sought to recover for the repair – and that doesn’t even touch the enormous amount of money Progressive paid its attorneys during the five-and-a-half years this case was litigated.

The witness also testified that Progressive was paying him $210 per hour for his testimony. Yet Progressive balked at paying North State Custom – the only Mercedes-Benz certified collision repair facility in Westchester County, N.Y. at that time – $53 per hour rather than the $42 labor charge it determined to be reasonable. And, unlike in other states, insurers paying claims in New York typically refuse to pay a higher labor rate for mechanical and structural repair work.

In the first trial of this matter in 2008, however, Progressive’s expert testified that while his shop’s body and paint labor rate was $48, his shop charged $52 for mechanical and structural repairs. Nonetheless, Progressive continues to refuse to pay a labor rate higher than the body rate for the mechanical and structural repairs performed on consumers’ vehicles in the State of New York, despite the fact that charging higher rates for mechanical and structural is a “standard in the industry” and despite paying higher rates for these repair categories across the country.

Messy Handling

More telling, perhaps, was Progressive’s actions during the entire course of its handling of the claim identified as “PACMAN” in its electronic claims handling file. Early in the handling of this claim, Progressive tried to make Mercedes-Benz pay for what its adjuster wrote as a $26,804.20 claim. Progressive thought it might be able to hold Mercedes responsible for the single-car accident as it sought to determine if a mechanical failure related to a brake recall might have been the cause of the crash. Progressive also accused the company that towed the vehicle from the accident scene of contributing to the damage on the vehicle and opened a subrogation claim against it as well.

At the same time, Progressive supervisors and desk reviewers re-wrote the adjuster’s $26,804.20 “committed” cost estimate, reducing the amount by $8,364.86. After almost a month, Progressive finally offered the insured $17,939.34 ($18,434.34 less her deductible) as the alleged necessary amount of money to restore her vehicle to pre-loss condition. Progressive never contacted North State about the substantial reduction in value of its cost estimate, which the adjuster had given to North State at the time of his inspection. As far as North State knew, Progressive had committed to pay at least $26,804.20 (less deductible) as there were open items on the adjuster’s cost estimate for parts prices not yet included in the estimating system database.

When North State finally learned of Progressive’s substantial reduction in the claim payment amount, it gave the insured two choices:

• She could remove her Mercedes E320 station wagon and take it to a different shop for repairs, as North State could not possibly make all the necessary repairs for the reduced amount Progressive was now offering her; or,
• she could elect to have the vehicle repaired by North State, pay the repair bill and seek indemnification from Progressive for the final bill – without North State having any contact with Progressive.

She elected to have North State repair the vehicle.

Ironically, North State gave the customer the opportunity to have her vehicle repaired at a different repair facility, which is exactly what Progressive had been pushing her to do. In fact, the PACMAN claim file showed that Progressive had tried to steer her to a network facility no fewer than six times, despite the fact that New York’s anti-steering statute (NY CLS Ins. § 2610) forbids an insurer from discussing its network or identifying other repair shops once the consumer has identified she has a selected a collision repair facility. And according to the PACMAN notes, this insured had done so at the time she reported her claim.

Shortly after the customer decided to have North State fully repair her vehicle, Victor Politzi, Progressive’s head of claims for the State of New York, reviewed this claim and found issues with Progressive’s handling of it. In his notes contained in the PACMAN dated Jan. 13, 2005, he stated that there were numerous problems with Progressive’s handling of the claim, including insurance regulatory violations, delays and improper triage determinations. He then stated that Progressive would have to do the best it could in dealing with “this difficult shop.”

From this point on, the manager for the office handling the claim became personally involved in its activities. Differing from the Dec. 29, 2004, entry in which one of the Progressive supervisors declared that Progressive “has not and will not attempt to negotiate an [agreed price] with shop,” the office manager, Nicholas Stanton, contacted North State on January 13, 2005, (after the discussion of Progressive’s mishandling with the head of New York claims) to try to “negotiate” with North State and come to “an agreed price” on the repairs. North State stated that it was repairing the vehicle for the customer, according to its contract with her.

Full Indemnification

In March 2005, when the vehicle was completely repaired, the customer asked North State to help her obtain full indemnification of her repair by sending Progressive the information on the repair work performed to her vehicle. North State agreed. Progressive then sent out a “team leader” to inspect the vehicle. Based on this inspection, Progressive rewrote various estimates and, on March 10, 2005, offered the insured approximately $30,447.93 (less deductible) to resolve her claim.

Based, in part, on some pressure Progressive received from the insured and her son, Progressive then began to wonder whether it should total the vehicle. The Monroni label (window sticker) for this particular vehicle with its options was $57,260.00. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was only six months old and had approximately 4,000 miles on it, and the original adjuster noted early on that the manufacturer’s suggested retail price on the vehicle was over $52,000.

Because the vehicle was a newly redesigned model and was itself so new, Progressive was unable to find values for this vehicle in any of the New York Insurance Department approved guides, NADA or Red Book, but found values for similar vehicles without the 4Matic option in AutoTrader and from dealers in the local market for approximately $45,000. Progressive also determined that the value of the 4Matic option added about $5,000 to the value of a vehicle, which would make the actual cash value of the vehicle $50,000. Progressive, however, found one vehicle value for this car on Edmunds.com for $43,844 – which is the amount it offered the lease company to declare the vehicle a total loss. The lease company accepted, stating that it would get the remainder of the note payoff (of $54,650) from the GAP insurer.

Before Progressive paid any money on behalf of the insured for the repairs, it decided to declare the vehicle a total loss and sue the collision repair shop to get its money back. Progressive deliberately hid from North State that it had declared this vehicle a total loss, and told the shop that it wanted to pick up the vehicle for the insured “as a customer service issue.” Progressive then faxed its “final estimate” of $36,903.57 to North State. North State immediately contacted Progressive to tell the insurer that the amount was too high and that the shop’s bill was only about $34,000. Progressive then revised its “final estimate” to $34,091.37 and prepared a payment to North State Custom in that amount.

Power of Attorney

Based on discussions with Victor Politzi and others at Progressive, Nicholas Stanton went to the insured’s house and “completed the power of attorney” to release the insured’s leasehold interest in the Mercedes. At trial, however, Progressive introduced this “power of attorney” as an exhibit to substantiate its assertion that it was now the legal owner of the repaired vehicle. But this power of attorney form only contained the vehicle’s identification number and insured’s signature, not any notarization or anything else that would make it complete. Stanton testified that he was not a notary public and admitted he did not have the form properly notarized.

Having already decided to sue North State, when Progressive picked up the vehicle on March 23, 2005, it had also planned a method to preserve the car as evidence of the repairer’s wrongdoing. Progressive hired a tow company to place the Mercedes E320 wagon on a flatbed and take the vehicle to a nearby Adesa auto auction site for storage. The PACMAN notes state, and Stanton confirmed at trial, that he hired an outside tow company rather than use an Adesa tow truck to prevent North State from discovering Progressive’s duplicity about returning the vehicle to the insured.

Although intending to carefully preserve the vehicle for evidence of the shop’s wrongdoing, Progressive damaged the vehicle before it even left the North State Custom parking lot. Instead of driving the vehicle onto the flatbed, or hooking up to the vehicle’s pre-designed front bumper tow hook, the tow operator hooked the chains to the control arms of the vehicle and pulled it onto the flatbed. North State employees tried to prevent this by rushing out and explaining the negative effect this would have on the vehicle, but they were waved away by Progressive’s Nicholas Stanton, who said that the vehicle “was his problem now.”

Progressive filed a suit against North State Custom and Greg Coccaro personally shortly afterward, alleging they committed fraud in the repair and charges for the vehicle.

Salvage Value

Progressive never obtained a salvage value for the vehicle in March 2005 even though it planned to sue North State at that time. In fact, it never obtained a salvage value for the vehicle until July 2008, two weeks before the first trial. Nevertheless, Progressive tried to recover the entire cost of repair performed by North State and the entire cost of the total loss paid to the leasing company, amounting to over $78,435.37 – without any reduction for the salvage value of the vehicle as of March 2005. The appellate court that reversed the trial judge’s dismissal of the suit and returned it for retrial limited Progressive’s claim of recovery to the $34,091.37 alleged in the complaint.

During both trials, Progressive admitted that the vehicle had been damaged while in its possession, and that it was not claiming North State had failed to repair damage to the rear bumper that had occurred post-repair. However, Progressive did claim that North State had charged to repair the right and left rocker panels, but that the damage still existed.

Expert Opinions

In the 2010 trial, North State Custom’s and Greg Coccaro’s expert witness testified that he saw evidence that the rocker panels had both been repaired and that the existing damage was not caused by the accident. Instead, he testified that he had seen this type of damage hundreds of times and that it was caused by the vehicle being improperly placed on a lift. Testimony from various witnesses established that Progressive had moved this vehicle to various different locations on numerous occasions during the time it had custody of it.

At the end of the day, Progressive’s expert testified at both trials that he was only able to detect $2,808.65 of alleged fraud committed by North State and Coccaro. Yet he acknowledged that his shop was not Mercedes certified, his shop was not located in a “Mercedes neighborhood” where he routinely performed repairs on these vehicles, and that he was simply unable to detect evidence of some repairs North State claimed to have performed.

He testified that he did not detect any hammer marks or other typical indications of repairs to the vehicle’s unibody, but admitted on cross-examination that photographs from the accident scene reflected damage had occurred to the unibody, which was no longer present.

He also claimed that North State’s charges for approximately seven parts that had not been installed on the customer’s vehicle were fraudulent, in his opinion, not merely a mistake. However, he admitted that his shop had occasionally charged for different parts than had been installed on customers’ vehicles as a result of a miscommunication between his parts manager and him. Despite this lack of substantial evidence, Progressive still sued North State and Coccaro for fraud.

No Negligence

What is particularly important about that complaint filing is that Progressive only sued for fraud, not for negligence and fraud. Had Progressive added the customary negligence claim in the complaint, North State’s garage insurance carrier would have been responsible for paying for the majority of defense costs, not North State and Coccaro. Progressive’s complaint is nonetheless important for future actions because it alleges that the shop and its primary owner committed fraud by failing to repair the consumer’s vehicle according to the insurance company’s estimate.

Which brings us full-circle to the importance of this case for the entire collision repair industry: The insurance company estimate is irrelevant for purposes of determining how the collision repairer will repair the consumer’s vehicle. Likewise, it is not fraudulent for a repairer to accept payment from an insurer on behalf of a consumer and apply those monies to the repair activities as the repairer professionally determines.

Lesson for All

The lesson for all repairers is that they should always be preparing their own damage analyses and blueprints for repair without regard to the insurer’s estimate.

Members of the U.S. Alliance of Collision Professionals, Inc. (USACP), have a pre-inked stamp so they can mark every insurance company estimate “For Informational Purposes Only.” This alleviates any confusion over who’s making the professional decisions about repairing a customer’s vehicle. Shops that “work off of,” utilize, download or otherwise give any credibility to an insurer’s estimate do nothing but contribute to the illusion that insurer cost estimates have meaning for determining and effecting repairs to consumers’ vehicles. In other words, those shops contribute to the problem other shops face when trying to remind insurers that repairers are the repair professionals. Insurers are simply professional payers.

Now is the time for all collision repairers to make certain they’re relegating insurance company estimates to their proper place – as insurance company internal documents justifying payment of a claim.

The industry would be foolish to waste the sacrifice Greg and his shop made that benefits the entire industry. You are in charge of the repair and liable for it. Write the damage analysis and blueprint for repair as you professionally determine, not based on the whim, instructions or alterior purposes of an insurer.

——————————————————————————–
E. L. Eversman is the chief counsel for Vehicle Information Services, Inc., and the author of the Forbes.com “Best of the Web” award-winning blog, AutoMuse. She has served as the chair of the Cleveland Bar Association’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, vice chair of that association’s International Law Section and is listed in the National Registry of Who’s Who. Eversman is a frequent speaker and author on automotive legal topics and has been quoted in such publications as The Wall Street Journal Online, USA Today, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, Cars.com, Yahoo! News and numerous trade magazines. She was also honored as the 2006 All Auto Appraisal Industry Conference hall of fame inductee. She is recognized nationally as an authority on diminished value and collision repair issues, and she served as an industry resource for the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws’ Uniform Certificate of Title Act drafting committee. Prior to launching the AutoMuse blog addressing automotive legal and consumer issues, Eversman wrote the legal column for the Web directory, AutoGuide.net.

12/16/2010 9:46:50 AM
 The over five-year-long court battle between North State Custom and Progressive finally came to an end yesterday when the jury cleared the collision repair facility and its owner, Greg Coccaro, of fraud charges.

“I’m so grateful that the jury was able to see through Progressive’s tactics and didn’t fall for the fairytale Progressive tried to tell them,” Coccaro said. “I feel exonerated. My business and reputation mean everything to me. That’s why I insisted on fighting these false accusations.”

Coccaro also expressed gratitude toward his legal team of Michael G. Santangelo, Erica L. Eversman and Anthony J. Mamo, Jr.

“I couldn’t have asked for better representation,” Coccaro said.

Michael Anderson of www.collisionadvice.com was also instrumental to North State Custom’s victory as he was able to testify that the repairs to the vehicle were properly executed and that the defendants were entitled to charge for the work that was performed. 

“Mike Anderson put his reputation on the line testifying on my behalf, and I owe him many thanks,” Coccaro said.

Coccaro is “looking forward to getting back to the business of performing quality collision repairs for customers” and said he’s “extremely grateful and touched by all of the support and encouragement shown by fellow members of the collision repair industry.”

“This is a triumph for the entire collision repair industry,” he said. “Now, insurers will know that they can’t accuse shops of fraud for making repairs according to the blueprint for repair set out in the shops’ estimates. After all, we are the repair professionals, and it’s time that insurers stop interfering with how we operate our businesses.” 

When asked if he would seek the recovery of fees and costs from Progressive, Coccaro said, “Nothing is off the table, but right now we need some time to process this win.”

COLLISION REPAIR INFORMATION

FOR THE COLLISION REPAIR PROFESSIONAL

TITLE: Use of non-OEM Parts on Toyota Vehicles

SECTION: BULLETIN #

MODELS: All Models

DATE: 11/30/2010

Toyota Lexus and Scion vehicles are engineered and manufactured as an integrated assembly of carefully designed and manufactured parts working as a system to provide predictable performance, safety and durability.

To help preserve the performance of Toyota/Lexus/Scion vehicles, Toyota Scion and Lexus publishes detailed repair procedures and produces and sells Genuine Toyota/Lexus Parts, which are manufactured to the same specifications and tolerances as the parts installed on new Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles. Repairing a vehicle using Genuine Toyota/Lexus/Scion parts and procedures can help return Toyota vehicles to pre-loss condition following a collision.

The use of Alternative Parts

Due to the sensitive nature of the safety and performance systems and lack of testing to determine their effect on vehicle crashworthiness, Toyota, Lexus and Scion do not recommend the use of alternative parts for the repair of Toyota vehicles. This includes:

_ Aftermarket Parts: Parts manufactured and branded by a company other than Toyota, Scion or Lexus

_ Rebuilt Parts: Exterior sheet metal parts (including bumpers and wheels)

removed from a damaged Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicle and refurbished for resale

_ Salvage/Recycled Parts: Parts removed from a previously damaged vehicle,

cleaned up and then installed on a different vehicle.

Overall Body Structure

Genuine Toyota, Lexus and Scion Parts are constructed using metals with specific properties, thicknesses and stamping structures built to perform in a consistent and predictable way during a collision event. The use of non-OEM structural components may compromise the overall crashworthiness and occupant safety of Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicles in a subsequent collision.

Supplementary Restraint System (SRS) Components

Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles are equipped with several SRS components including airbags and seatbelt pretensioners, which are designed to help protect vehicle occupants from injury. These parts rely upon precisely manufactured sensors to detect a collision event and trigger the SRS components to deploy within milliseconds of an impact. The installation of parts branded by companies other than Toyota, Scion or Lexus that may not be tested to match Toyota, Lexus or Scion performance specifications may alter the structure of a vehicle and could result in improper operation of the SRS sensors and components.

Exterior Sheet Metal Parts

The exterior sheet metal components are often described as “Cosmetic Parts”. However,

these parts are designed and tested as part of the overall vehicle and may help send impact energy to the SRS sensors. In addition, some of these parts may help Toyota, Lexus or Scion vehicles comply with several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) including hood intrusion in the passenger cabin, preservation of proper door operation following a collision and proper airbag function. Alternative parts may not be crash tested to verify compliance with these standards.

Recycled Parts

Toyota, Lexus and Scion do not recommend the re-use of structural components that have been removed from a previously damaged vehicle. Although parts may appear equivalent, it may be difficult to identify previous damage, if a part has received collateral damage as a result of a prior collision or if the part has been subject to extreme weathering, corrosion or other detrimental environmental exposure. Furthermore, removing welded parts from a donor vehicle, may compromise the structural integrity of the parts being used