back to top 

At the Collision Industry Conference (CIC) in Seattle during October, Roger Wright was named chairman of CIC for 2003.

Wright spent 25 years of his career working for insurance companies before joining Collision Team of America in 1998, then becoming vice president of insurance relations for the CARSTAR chain in 2000. He is also chairman of I-CAR's board of directors.

Wright takes the reins from outgoing chairman Lou DiLisio, who deserves the thanks of CIC participants for his gracious yet determined encouragement of committees, focusing them on tasks at hand, and accomplished in a timely manner.

The CIC Estimating Com-mittee recently sought input on the question: When should glass be removed for paint procedures?

"If the glass or any of its attached parts, such as reveal moldings, will prevent refinishing to a clear cut-off point, it should be removed," a response from one paint company stated. "This recommendation is based solely on agreed upon principles of quality and long-term durability. Based on a vehicle's condition, age or design, it may be possible to accomplish a 'commercially acceptable' level of quality and long-term durability by utilizing common masking techniques such as roping or lifting. Issues related to diminished values will be prevalent if these techniques are used."

State Farm's response to the committee was a bit more vague, saying the decision needs to be made on a "case by case basis."

"State Farm feels that anytime a part obstructs a necessary refinishing process (i.e., may cause material bridging, will not allow proper preparation and/or will not allow proper access to apply materials), the part should be considered for removal," Rick Tuuri, co-chairman of the CIC Estimating Committee said, reading a written response from the insurer at CIC in Seattle in mid-October.

So who is responsible for the costs if a glass is masked off and a paint failure occurs?

"The issue of who should pay when a failure occurs because of the choice to mask versus remove must fall to the repair procedure decision maker," a written response from Sherwin Williams said. "The shop that decides to mask versus remove is as liable for the redo as the insurance company who refuses to pay for the procedure. The decision to mask versus remove must be equally agreed upon by both the shop and the insurance company."

State Farm lays the burden for the cost of such a paint failure at the feet of the shop, "assuming proper consideration was given the answer as to when a glass should or should not be removed."

Committee co-chairman March Taylor commended State Farm, however, for being "very realistic and open to negotiation" in their response as to who should bear the cost when a glass or related molding is broken or damaged during the removal process.

"State Farm feels a discussion should take place between the repairer and the estimator as to whether the glass should be removed and who should be held responsible should damage occur," the insurer stated. "Clearly, negligence on the part of the repairer during removal process would be the responsibility of the repairer. On a case by case basis, the repairer and estimator should reach a prearranged financial agreement as to how costs will be handled should damage occur."

Some of the options that could be agreed upon based upon that discussion, State Farm said, would be that any such costs be divided equally between the shop and insurer, or that the insurer buy the replacement glass at cost, without mark-up to the shop.

In other news and discussions

• During a panel discussion on ethics and fraud, Doug Walsh, an assistant attorneys general for Washington state, said cooperation between insurers and shops is the only way to drive fraud out of the industry.

  "You're not in a free enterprise system," Walsh said. "The purpose of the free enterprise system is to have the consumer's dollar chase the highest quality goods at the lowest price; that has nothing to do with your industry. The third party payer perverts it. The normal market forces are not operating. And as regulators, we're confused about your industry because you're finger-pointing between the insurers and the autobody craftsmen.

  "If insurance companies and auto collision repairers can get together and recognize their responsibility to the insured and the customer, and work to fulfill that, that's the only way your system can work," Walsh said. "Because market forces are not going to get rid of businesses that aren't doing that."

• Mark Olson of Future Forensics, a Seattle-based firm that offers reinspection of repaired vehicles, cautioned shop owners against saying they return vehicles to "pre-accident condition." That would require among other things, he said, shops to use squeeze-type resistance spot welding like the factory, and to dip all welded areas in a pool of e-coat.

  "That's not saying you're not doing it right," Olson said. "That's not saying it's not going to last as long if not longer. But to tell someone you're going to put the car back to 'pre-accident condition' is setting yourself up for failure because there's no way you can do it exactly like the factory does."

• A number of CIC committees announced plans for the next meeting, in Dallas, Texas on December 4.

  The Industry Discussions Committee is planning a session on industry interest in "service level agreements," in which a service or product provider offers some sort of compensation if it doesn't provide an agreed-upon level of service.

  CIC's Write It Right Com-mittee will have the latest draft of its brochure being designed to help consumers understand the collision repair process.

  And the CIC Parts and Airbags Committee is planning a second "recyclable parts demonstration" in which CIC attendees can compare used decklids that will be ordered by a local shop from different suppliers.