A list of state representatives serving on the committee is listed below. If you are a repairer in a state that is not represented on the committee, SCRS urges you to communicate directly with Sen. Ruth Teichman, chair of the NCOIL Property & Casualty Committee. The NCOIL Property & Casualty committee is scheduled to discuss a Model Act Regarding Motor Vehicle Crash Parts on Thursday, November 18th, and a Model Act Regarding Insurer Auto Body Steeringon Saturday, November 20th.
SCRS has vocally objected to the Crash Parts model, both during in earlier debates held during the previous decade, and since it was reintroduced to the committee in 2008. SCRS' overarching objections to the model have remained unaddressed by legislators through the last several hearings, and include, but are not limited to concerns that:
- The model does not place greater
responsibility on the part manufacturers/distributors to
improve overall quality, or limit the market to only
receiving high quality parts, but instead shifts the burden
onto the repair facility that is repairing the vehicle and
increases their liability in the process unduly. (ex: in
section 5. The language requires that the repairer affix a
permanent, non-removable identification on parts, instead of
presenting that only parts where the manufacturers
permanently stamp the part with identification can be
sold.)
-
Parts are sold interstate and this model has the potential
to be adopted or ignored on a state-by-state basis, thus
negating its effectiveness even in states which pass the
model. Parts regulation needs to be a federal initiative.
- Establishing equivalence between two different types
of parts simply due to a certification insinuates that part
of the certification process is to be equivalent in EVERY
way, versus meeting certain established criteria by the
certifying body. There is a tremendous difference between
acceptable parts and equivalent parts.
- There is no requirement for testing of the parts outlined in the model, not any mention of traceability, and most importantly there is seemingly no responsibility resting with the insurer should they choose to involve themselves in repair decision such as part selection. If an insurer steps outside of the business of insurance, and into the business of automobile repair by making specification, they should assume the responsibility for those choices.
In regard to the Steering Model, SCRS initially sought to improve the language of the proposed model by providing amendments during the last hearing held in Boston, Massachusetts. Based on nearly unanimous opposition to the model by interested parties, and significant lack of outright support from the legislators for the proposed amendments offered by SCRS, the association has adopted a position of opposition to the model as proposed.
The association is concerned that the model:
- Lacks language that addresses the nuances
within the claims settlement process, and provides minimal
prohibitions which are easily navigated through carefully
crafted word tracks. As an example, section 4A indicates
that "an insurer shall not require an insured or claimant to
utilize preferred repair facilities as a prerequisite to
settling or paying a claim." The language fails to recognize
that steering is often not conducted through "requirements"
or "mandates" but through suggestion or insinuation.
- Provides little outline of enforceability. In
Section 6B the proposed model indicates that violations of
the model would be considered under the unfair claims
settlement practices and subject to applicable state fines
and penalties. In most states, the Unfair Claims Practices
are specifically only upheld when there is an established
pattern of practice in violation of the practices. If a
steering law is going to be effective, it must be
enforceable per-instance rather than as a pattern of
practice. This model fails to apply a per-instance caveat
for the violation.
- Ultimately this model has less foreseeable impact, and more mild restrictions than many states have today in existing anti-steering law. Introducing new model law that fails to meet or exceed existing statutes that are more comprehensive opens the door for more lax adherence to existing statute and a regression for states that have achieved a higher standard in this area.
For more information visit www.scrs.com.