![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ASA Continues Crash Parts EffortsPosted 4/10/2000By Robert L. Redding, Jr.
Although the Automotive Service Association (ASA) continues to work with state policymakers across the country on pro-consumer legislative initiatives relative to replacement crash parts reform, we cannot ignore industry efforts to improve replacement crash parts. Recently ASA hosted, through its Collision Division Operations Committee, representatives of the aftermarket parts industry as well as the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) to discuss the status of replacement crash parts policy. In addition to Operations Committee members in attendance, the meeting also included Jack Gillis, executive director of the Certified Automotive Parts Association; Buck Haddock, president of Eagle Automotive Inc.; Charlie Hoggarty, CEO of Keystone Automotive Industries; and Steve Bollander, vice president of the Auto Body Parts Association. It is important to note that approximately 40 pieces of legislation have been introduced in states around the country during this legislative season. This has increased dramatically over the past few years when the number of replacement crash parts bills hovered closer to 20 bills annually. Clearly all these bills do not become law. But the increase certainly is an indication of the interest the State Farm case as well as media reports have produced among policymakers and consumers. ASA has heightened its state policy efforts in 2000 but does not want to ignore the possibility of an industry solution. Obviously, the industry has the power to resolve many of the crash parts issues on its own. Unfortunately, there has been little interest in resolution by the insurers over the years. Insurance companies have had the luxury of eliminating these legislative initiatives before their final passage in the states year after year. Thus, the opportunity for compromise has been nil. This may be changing with more media attention and questions from the consumer as to what types of parts are being used in the repair of their vehicle. Hopefully, this first meeting with CAPA and aftermarket manufacturers is a step toward industry resolution. Issues discussed at the meeting included:
States continue to consider a variety of legislative bills. They vary from more pronounced "notice" bills, to "notice and consent" bills, to bills that only allow OEM parts during vehicle warranty periods. ASA is a proponent of "notice and consent" legislation as are the OEMs. This policy position was developed through two separate industry summits during 1996. It is critical that the industry keeps lines of communication open even as opposing legislation is pursued around the country. As discussed in a recent ABRN article, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) could have resolved this problem years ago by taking more interest in the quality and safety of all vehicle replacement crash parts in the marketplace. A limited focus on headlights has produced industry frustration and contributed to the consumer's lack of confidence in collision repair with regard to crash parts. NHTSA could play the role of mediator during what has become a bonanza of class action suits and state legislation and regulation. Instead the industry and consumers have state legislatures, state and federal courts, insurance commissioners, attorneys general, and agriculture and consumer commissioners reviewing ways to resolve the replacement crash parts issue. Without federal leadership, the industry will have to come to some resolve or we will see a patchwork of state laws and regulations that vary dramatically from state to state. ASA has encouraged model legislation around the country but this has not been an exact science. Policymakers delete and add to bills from state to state. Some legislators have encouraged anti-steering provisions and other industry-related language on crash parts legislation. ASA will continue to meet with industry sectors to try and resolve the replacement crash parts problems. But let's be candid that this will not impede our efforts to encourage and support legislation at the state levels that enhance the position of consumers and repairers in the crash parts field. Hopefully the industry will move to resolve its own problems. Without the insurance industry taking a serious look at compromise and the current plight of consumers and repairers, there will be no industry resolution. Absent federal regulators taking the initiative, the industry will be left with a protracted policy debate for years to come that at best will produce a variety of state laws paralleled by what we now have with disjointed state-to-state titling laws.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||