In a case surely to invoke a complete analysis of the replacement crash parts debate, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review several specific issues in an Illinois case. The court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Although for the last several years policymakers have begun to take a hard look at the quality and safety issues surrounding replacement crash parts, the courts have not established a clear precedent in the debate.

Two overriding issues merit the attention of automotive repairers. First, will this case or quite possibly this decision move the insurance industry to a more consumer-friendly concept of replacement crash parts policy? Second, consumer organizations profile their national position on the use of parts. The latter is critical to state and federal legislative and regulatory policy. Without some movement in this area, collision repairers will continue to struggle to explain how proper notice and consent of the use of parts impacts consumers.

To move to the consumer debate, we first must address the role of this case. There is a temptation for repairers to cheer for a complete victory for the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, there is a point where this process can go too far. If a decision provides the impetus for the insurance industry to walk away from aftermarket or recyclable crash parts, independent repairers will have restricted themselves to a noncompetitive playing field. It will not be healthy in the long run for collision repairers. We raise these concerns as the level of frustration builds, amongst repairers, with the use of non-original equipment manufactured parts. If the court opts for a more consumer-driven policy, then consumers, insurers and repairers win. This policy must revolve around adequate notice and consent.

How vulnerable we are when states with little or no replacement crash parts policy begin to review possible regulatory or legislative initiatives. Warranty periods, the nightmare for mechanical repairers, have historically been popular ways to address crash parts policy. ASA has tried to shift the debate to consumer protection, not manufacturer protection.

If we are to believe the rhetoric of those that make all kinds of parts, the consumer is first. Sufficient information for decision-making should not be offensive. Then why are consumer organizations not involved in moving legislation that allows informed decisions? One only need to look inside the State Farm case to see what repairers will find as far as organized consumer resistance to fair, substantive reform of replacement crash parts policy.

In its petition to the Court, State Farm outlined the major consumer organizations in support of its practice of specifying non-OEM parts because "it significantly promotes policyholder interests." Those national consumer organizations were the Consumers Union, the Consumers Federation of America, and the Center for Auto Safety. Other state groups also showed an interest in the case.

Why? In an attempt to move replacement crash parts policy at the state level, ASA has seen consumer organizations testifying in opposition, time and again, to any regulation or oversight of replacement crash parts. State Farm, in its brief, referenced a consumer advocate's one-time testimony that "the insurance companies, and in this case, State Farm, are on the side of the angels."

Public Citizen, the Center for Auto Safety, the Consumer Federation of America and the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group filed a brief in support of the insurer's position. These are very large national organizations ranging in size from 15,000 to over 50 million Americans. The stated message in their brief is at the heart of the difficulty for repairers to make a complete advocacy effort in legislatures, the Congress or in regulatory agencies. "Consumers benefit both directly and indirectly from policies that encourage the use of non-OEM replacement parts, which is why national consumer organizations, such as amici, have long supported such policies. This benefit to consumers occurs not only because non-OEM parts are less expensive than OEM parts, but also because their very existence as an alternative to OEM parts serves to stimulate competition and reduce the cost of OEM parts. For car owners who are of the do-it-yourself variety, the downward trend that non-OEM parts have on the replacement crash parts market leads to substantial direct benefits. For car owners who prefer to leave this task to an auto body shop, the savings are apparent on the "parts" portion of the final bill. And of particular relevance here, the use of non-OEM parts benefits policy-holders in general, and the plaintiff class members in particular, by reducing the cost of repairs and thus insurance premiums, stated the brief."

Consumer organizations go on to argue that although some parts are not of high quality, there is no reason to believe that non-OEM parts are generally inferior. Paramount to this is the reference to the cost-savings made through the use of non-OEM parts running in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

It would have been unfortunate for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this matter based on broad class action philosophy. Hopefully, the Illinois court system will continue to focus on the replacement crash parts debate and allow grassroots consumers the opportunity to be made aware and approve the quality of repair and the types of parts being use in the repair of their vehicle.

Competition must remain in place with assistance from a properly educated public. This cannot occur unless insurers are assertive with notifying the customer and seeking approval of the use of specific types of parts.

What about repairers? Although the lack of revised consumer policy would not preclude positive policy changes as to replacement crash parts, it could certainly enhance our position as we are advocates at the state and federal level. We must invest more time in persuading consumer groups to take a practical second look at crash parts policy. No one should fear an informed public or in this case, their constituents.

As repairers, we must avoid temptations to eliminate a competitive marketplace but continue to advance our customer's position by ensuring that the customer is informed and consents to the repairs on their vehicle. ASA supports competition and the right of the consumer to be notified and consent to the types of parts used in the repair. We have to invest time in educating consumer organizations that our position is best for them, too.

Bob Redding is the Automotive Service Association's Washington, D.C., representative. He is a member of several federal and state advisory committees involved in the automotive industry. For more information about the legislative activities of ASA, visit www.TakingTheHill.com.

RATE THIS ARTICLE What do you think of this article? Your input will help AutoInc. develop additional articles on this subject. Share your thoughts! Your name Your e-mail address

MOST ACCESSED ARTICLES Fuel Injection Service, Not Just Cleaning The Art of Extraction EGR Systems: Operation and Diagnosis Proactive Target Marketing:_Rethinking Your Business Strategy Engine Performance: HO2S Diagnostics MOST E-MAILED ARTICLES Developing Employee Potential How Critical Thinking Can Help Your Business How to Diagnose the Ford Glow Plug What to Look for When Shopping for the Right Shop Management Software Putting a Price Tag on Complaints

AutoInc. Web Site | ASA Web Site | State Farm Case Reveals Consumer Crash Parts Views | What to Expect When Buying Tools on Credit | Aftermarket Crash Parts | Managing Your Most Precious Commodity - Time | Top 10 Automotive Repair Web Sites | Guest Editorial | Tech to Tech | Tech Tips | Net Worth | Stat Corner | Chairman's Message