Comment

Comment by Jeff Silver on April 24, 2010 at 6:05pm

I wasn't at CIC, so I shouldn't comment, but I will anyway because I was in the middle of an Industry standards effort 17 years ago. I have read the CIC document, and although an insurance person is the chair of the committee, that doesn't mean the insurance industry is setting the standard. CIC, and I-CAR by the way, are consensus building organizations. That means they involve every segment of the Interindustry, listen to their points of view, and agree on something that all can live with. It's actually a very elegant process that works, but there has to be involvement too. So shame on those who sit on the sidelines and don't participate in the process. They have no one to blame except themselves if they don't participate.

As for the CIC document that's currently being reviewed, it's a logical extension of the "Class A Shop" definition that CIC developed over 20 years ago, and all segments of the Industry have used successfully since then. The I-CAR UPCR was developed as a consensus document 17 years ago and is still available on the I-CAR web site. It was never a commercial success, but it shows how much an Interindustry, working together, can accomplish. I applaud the people behind the effort to try again in today's environment.

Comment by Richard D McDonald on April 23, 2010 at 12:32pm

Mr. Sheehy writes; "I'm not a hater of insurers - I just don't want them meddling with my business as much as they don't want us meddling with theirs." That is a statement that needs a lot of thought on the part of the author, either that or more experience in the real world as we know it.

Unfortunately, both sides of this coin are a fact of the business, and I have been in the repair business for 19 years in IL, and as a claims adjuster and claims manager for 28 years working physically on all states east of the Mississippi River and 2 eastern provinces of Canada.

Insurers do not want improperly repaired vehicles back on the road. Nor do the quality repair shops. The liability issues are huge, and in this economy all someone needs is the accusation of shoddy repair work and the legal gloves come off.

And, there are some shops who will quite often stick their noses into the business of an insurance carrier by trying to influence the vehicle owner, and convincing he or she that the adjuster doesn't know a bumper cover from seat cover. Whether it be an Independent or Staff Adjuster.

And, before anyone here hyperventilates, sit down - take a deep breath, we are professionals here and we know this to be true.

Mr. Fowler makes a very valid point - it is the manufacturer who should establish the guidelines for the repair of ANY damaged vehicle that carries their brand. Reason being, their liability can be exposed IF the repair is substandard, or done improperly and a 2nd owner has not been made aware of any prior repairs that may have compromised the structural integrity of the vehicle in question.

Don't think so, just ask any real attorney who specializes in these types of torts. They go after everyone, you know, I know it - and they most certainly know it.

So here's a proposal; it is my feeling that members of all 3 industries sit down, come up with a comprehensive solution and work with ICAR to make sure that the training is available to everyone in the insurance and repair industry based upon manufacturer standards of repair for each model of vehicle manufactured.

There is more we can do working together, than we can being adversaries over every dollar and dime that is spent in the pursuit of a properly repaired vehicle.

Comment by Bob Smith on April 22, 2010 at 1:44pm

To follow up on Kristin's comment which I did not read until after my post I would have the following comment.
How many repairers are in the country and how many were in the room. I think we will find less than 2 dozen people who are trying to write standards for an industry of thousands. This is not to say good work cannot come out of it but we must be ever watchful that we include all the industry in our thinking not just the less than 1% (including the whole CIC room).
So you may have one room of people suggesting that they work together to set standards but is that the feeling of the majority of the industry. Personally I don't know and it could be a good question to find an answer to. I think the one thing we can be sure of though is that our interest would be best served if the collision repairer would get off their back side and take an interest in their industry and be the ones who prepare the rules they have to live with.

As my previous post says the infra structure is already there lets use it and approve it. I think in the CIC room you may have seen a slightly slanted view of what needs to be done.

Comment by Bob Smith on April 22, 2010 at 1:31pm

I have been following the thread on the Insurance Relations/Standards Committees discussion. I have not shied away from being the only one to take a different stance so let me play the devil’s advocate for a little while.
First of all yes we need to improve things that is a given but I can’t help but feel that we are going at it like taking a 16# sledge to drive a thumb tack while re-inventing the wheel.
Everyone is mentioning Thatchum and the UK. I remember somewhere in the past that we discussed that in the UK there were 16K shops when Thatchum came into being and now there are less than 5K. This attrition rate from some third party that steps in seems a little steep to this old country boy. Was it Standards or was it a selective elimination of competition? Expanding these numbers to the US it would appear to mean that an industry of questionably 45K would be reduced to around 14K.
Now I fail to see how 14K shops can repair all the repairable damaged cars in a territory the size of the United States. Might be a good theory if it would work but I think a little thought would show would some people could be taking their cars hundreds of miles to get repairs. I don’t see that happening.
With the condition of the UK repair industry as I understand it today we can only hope that we don’t follow their example. I will grant that many of the things they do have merit.
Secondly most of its success has been linked to a coalition of insurance and government entities. We as repairers are crying about third party intervention in our businesses. In addition I just came from a Senate hearing on a licensing bill in which the major insurers were adamant that it did not want further government intervention in their business which they stated included automobile repair[?].
A similar program to the UK for those who are leaning this way would cause a significant additional cost to establish the structure which would have to be passed onto the shops. Now the shops don’t pay attention to the cost structure for some very good programs now offered at less money…do we think they are going to pay attention to an additional cost? ASE has been around for 37 years and Gold Class has been around for 25, what you think the chances are of shops paying attention or money to a new and more expensive program. ASE is one of if not the most recognized programs and logo’s in the world for certification.
Why reinvent the wheel…we have most of the infra structure in place already why not work with refining it to what is needed. My good friend Tony Passwater wrote an article for ABRN,I would also suggest follow up article by ASE's Tony Molla, also in ABRN so there is a balanced view.
It has been said that we have most of what we need already in place why don’t we just recognize it and use it?
Lastly and I’ll shut up I have said it before and will say it again less than 1% of an industry is trying to write criteria for a complete industry when they don’t have the complete industry at the table. Not everyone is a big box operation or a multiple shop operation. Most of our industry is comprised of smaller shops [some may consider them inefficient but they are the back bone of the industry and they are spread all across our country] these shops cannot be ignored or legislated out of business. Business 101 will take out the ones that need to go we should not help push them over the edge.
Constructively let’s take what we have and let the members of that industry, the collision repairers, make some sense of form and structure out of it. Although many may disagree with me I fail to see where the business of insurance is the business of repairing damaged cars. I also don’t think they will let the collision industry into their business and write standards and dictate policy if past history proves anything.

Just another consumer take on all this.

Comment by Andrew C. Ikner on April 19, 2010 at 12:30pm

I understand the industry's frustration when it comes to this issue. Just have to remember that the repairer and the insurer have a customer in common. I am new to this vendor side of the business and represent "PMC Logic". We have a very unbiased Paint and Material Control system that is meeting with some very good reviews from both sides of the business.

Comment by Danny Wyatt on April 18, 2010 at 8:04pm

Bob that is interesting to know and it makes me wonder if all the Traveler's adjusters in Mass can actually take a vehicle set it up and measure in 2 hours. I would like to see a Travelers damage appraisal for the $375.00. I only see the 2 hours for set up and measure on Traveler's adjusters and their DRP shops.

Comment by Bob Collins on April 18, 2010 at 9:01am

Hey Danny
Travelers Insurance, right here in MA, has a Cheif bench and electroninc measuing right in their lobby/office. They also calim the market rate to "measure" a car is $375. But they are a at loss to explain why their DRP shop was paid only two hours ($80) for setup AND measure.

Comment by Danny Wyatt on April 17, 2010 at 12:32pm

Auto insurers DO NOT REPAIR DAMAGED VEHICLES, SO THEY ARE NOT THE REPAIR EXPERTS. They are in the business of providing insurance coverage, and they collect the premiums for that coverage. I have yet to see any roll-up doors with work bays, frame machines and paint booths at an auto insurer’s own facility. Auto-body shops are the repair experts; however, I sometimes question these “experts” after seeing many of their estimates and repairs.

Comment by Mark W Livingston on April 17, 2010 at 11:05am

Good day Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Fowler and Ms. Felder:
I was pleased to see the direction in which the CIC Repair Industry Standards draft has taken.
When I reviewed the document (which is similar to the standards required to operate a Collision Repair Business in many provinces in Canada) it would appear to me that the intention of the document is the facilitation of PCE/Lean (Process Centered Environment) business practices.
I believe that by now, everyone within the Industry recognizes the necessity for the CR Industry to evolve from its current state into a less fragmented industry that operates on mutual agreements that include the numerous items (and others) listed in the CIC Draft. Each one of us has the potential to influence others (who know less) in the repairs that are necessary to restore a customer’s vehicle to a state that replicates its pre-accident condition. An Industry Standard provides a baseline that is auditable by outside players (Extended Enterprise) to ensure that the product they are purchasing has the potential to meet their requirements prior to purchase and continues to meet their requirements after receiving the service.
Mr. Fowler’ statement concerning the state of the CR Industry is accurate and it is up to us as members of the Industry to look beyond the workload that is in the facility today, to focus on the Extended Enterprise that constitutes the supply chain for our facility and to ensure that we are compensated according to the investment that we have in our facilities, our staff and our communities. Our business model requires extensive overhauling to ensure its sustainability, and I believe that the PCE model provides the framework for the preservation of the industry, although it certainly will not possess any semblance to the state that the Industry is in today.

Comment by Christopher Sheehy on April 17, 2010 at 9:59am

Here is a draft of the suggested auto body repair standards introduced by CIC.

http://www.ciclink.com/standards/standardssections1-2-3-4-5.pdf

Read it, then ask yourself why would we permit an insurer to be involved with this?

Fowler made some great points below - the manufactures ARE the guide. Solutions exist today to obtain this information - some of it is at a cost, some for free - but it is out there.

The proposed CIC draft is quite complex and there is some great information in it - however, I am concerned that this could create greater divide than unity. It seems to be a little big-brother-ish to me. Read it!

The Autobody industry has been asking insurers to accept our "suggestions" for years - like staff appraiser standards, P-page standards, paint & material reimbursement standards, body supply standards, DRP standards, fair compensation standards, and claims handling standards ever since I've been in this industry - fails every time. So why are we handing them an opportunity to create our standards?

I don't want the government to tell me how to run my business, and I certainly don't want an insurance company to either, nor a cobbler, or a baker. The notion of a third party to arbitrate over these auto body repair standards and having the power to make the final decision is just ludicrous to me.

I'm not a hater of insurers - I just don't want them meddling with my business as much as they don't want us meddling with theirs.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page